What's the best / most popular open-source IMAP server these days?

On Sat, 9 Aug 2008, Pepe posted:
> What is this "MIX" format? Not the same as the "MBX" format? Is "MBX"
> deprecated?

mbx is a format designed in 1996 to scale for the needs of 1996. It did
that; but the world is very different today.

mix is a new format designed in 2006, to scale to modern needs.

> Thanks for the nice UW-imap server, by the way!

Thanks!

> Also, I'm shocked by you endorsing Microsoft Exchange... Do you think
> Exchange is a good option? (Exchange means Active Directory, which means
> surrendering the kingdom's keys to Microsoft...)

I don't endorse Exchange.

I just observe that open specification email servers (POP and IMAP)
worldwide are being shut down and replaced by Exchange. In large part,
this is not the fault of any POP or IMAP software; but rather is due to
the miserable failure of the IETF community to create a viable calendar,
task manager, and contact manager.

There are many issues with Exchange, not the least being Active Directory,
but it does little good to explain this to people who have fingers tightly
in ears yelling "I can't hear you."

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

On Jul 11, 4:44*pm, Mark Crispin <m...@Panda.COM> wrote:

> The problem is fixed in Panda IMAP as of now.

> Please update your list to add "Panda IMAP 2008, mix format", and show
> both issues as fixed there. *Thanks again!!!!!!

Hi Mark,

Since you already did that work, unfunded, it's puzzling why you won't
share it on a no-support basis. If you don't have time to put it on
an FTP server, I can put it on mine.

I posted this using my real email. And it works too. I tried mailing
mrc@panda.com but it bounced on user unknown.

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, John Kelly posted:
> Since you already did that work, unfunded, it's puzzling why you won't
> share it on a no-support basis. If you don't have time to put it on
> an FTP server, I can put it on mine.

I use it for my home system, which is self-funded. However, I decline to
self-fund distribution to others.

UW IMAP is still available as a public open source distribution on the UW
FTP server.

There is no such thing as "free software", whether "free as in no cost" or
"free as in freedom". Someone always pays, and there are always
restrictions.

I am looking into options for distributing Panda IMAP, including a public
open-source distribution. I can't yet comment further in public.

> I posted this using my real email. And it works too. I tried mailing
> mrc@panda.com but it bounced on user unknown.

I'll respond further in email.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

On Aug 26, 6:00*pm, Mark Crispin <m...@panda.com> wrote:

> I use it for my home system, which is self-funded. *However, I decline to
> self-fund distribution to others.

I wasn't suggesting you incur extra costs. That's why I offered my
FTP server.

> UW IMAP is still available as a public open source distribution on the UW
> FTP server.

I was talking about your patches since then.

> There is no such thing as "free software", whether "free as in no cost" or
> "free as in freedom". *Someone always pays, and there are always
> restrictions.

Some people create for the joy of it, and release their work to the
public domain. The Apache License 2.0 is nearly public domain, for
practical purposes.

That said, you have no obligation to continue unfunded work on UW-IMAP
if that is your choice. But once you make some patches to fix bugs,
self-funded, why not share them on a no-support basis, if you can
avoid costs of distribution? You can email them to me, or I can give
you a shell account on my FTP server, as a interim step while you
evaluate better options.

> I'll respond further in email.

Looking forward to it.

John Kelly writes:

> I wasn't suggesting you incur extra costs. That's why I offered my
> FTP server.

It's very kind of you, but my impression is that Mark Crispin is really
looking for a little bit more than that. As you might know, many Linux
developers are employed by companies like IBM, Dell, Novell, Red Hat, and
others, and they're paid to work on Linux. I believe that Mark Crispin is
looking for similar arrangements -- to be hired to work on his IMAP server's
code. He'll correct me if I misread his statements, but I'm pretty sure
that's what he would like to see happen.

> That said, you have no obligation to continue unfunded work on UW-IMAP
> if that is your choice. But once you make some patches to fix bugs,
> self-funded, why not share them on a no-support basis, if you can
> avoid costs of distribution?

I think that he is simply advertising known issues in the public UW-IMAP
code base hoping that some organization, that uses UW-IMAP in a
mission-critical role, would want to hire him.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEABECAAYFAki0kR0ACgkQx9p3GYHlUOIqUwCdGB4QK2JQzn OUXKJ6PrT9EcTd
PBAAn0zfFcIUuWUe8elSh5iguxpH9kSt
=by7t
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Sam posted:
> I believe that Mark Crispin is
> looking for similar arrangements -- to be hired to work on his IMAP server's
> code. He'll correct me if I misread his statements, but I'm pretty sure
> that's what he would like to see happen.

I have full-time work, and am no longer looking for a new job.

When I was looking for work, I was not looking to continue working on the
IMAP server. After ~20 years both that code base and the IMAP protocol
itself are no longer a growth market.

My concern with the IMAP server was to find a middle course between
abandoning it (leaving my long-time users high and dry) and my putting in
effort in uncompensated development and support. Such a middle course
requires some form of funding that justifies the effort I put into it.

> I think that he is simply advertising known issues in the public UW-IMAP code
> base hoping that some organization, that uses UW-IMAP in a mission-critical
> role, would want to hire him.

You are correct insofar that I was establishing market differentiation
from UW IMAP in case there was a feasible business case to market it as a
commercial product.

My initial impression, proven by the subsequent waters-testing, is that
there is not a feasible business case. There are customers, but not
enough customers.

I am working on an alternative which will lead to an open source
distribution.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

On Aug 27, 12:58*am, Mark Crispin <markrcris...@panda.com> wrote:

> When I was looking for work, I was not looking to continue working on the
> IMAP server. *After ~20 years both that code base and the IMAP protocol
> itself are no longer a growth market.

Technology for the masses tends toward ubiquity. Between Exchange for
business and Gmail for individuals, there's not much market left.
Personally, I don't trust anything that looks like big brother, so I
certainly won't archive my email at Google. But unfortunately, people
like me don't represent a worthwhile market.


> My initial impression, proven by the subsequent waters-testing, is that
> there is not a feasible business case. *There are customers, but not
> enough customers. I am working on an alternative which will lead to an
> open source distribution.

My unsolicited business advice is, don't invest much effort in it.

Don't get me wrong, I use and like your code. It's stable, and with
MIX, it's even cool. But you've done enough. I just want your recent
patches. The users should pick up the ball and run with it now.

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, John Kelly posted:
> Technology for the masses tends toward ubiquity. Between Exchange for
> business and Gmail for individuals, there's not much market left.

There is a niche that is neither Exchange nor the cloud, but that niche is
quite a bit different than it was 10 years ago. For better or worse,
running a mail server has become a far more daunting task today than in
the past.

Today's market is in products and services that make the mail server be
Someone Else's Problem, not in packages which assume that you are building
your own mail server (and only especially those that only address a
portion of the overall problem).

Put another way, the market doesn't want an IMAP server. It wants a
turnkey complete mail server solution (of which IMAP service is a small
piece).

> Personally, I don't trust anything that looks like big brother, so I
> certainly won't archive my email at Google. But unfortunately, people
> like me don't represent a worthwhile market.

Indeed. The mass migration to the cloud is more than a little bit
frightening to privacy advocates. The same individuals who vehemently
protest legislation such as the Patriot Act enthusiastically acceed to
giving the cloud providers far access to their private lives than any
government dreams of having.

However, the time is not ripe to point that out, just as it was not ripe
to point out the lack of security in personal computers in the 1980s. It
will be a while before the general public is ready to understand with such
esoteric issues.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

On Aug 27, 3:04 pm, Mark Crispin <markrcris...@panda.com> wrote:

> Indeed. The mass migration to the cloud is more than a little bit
> frightening to privacy advocates. The same individuals who vehemently
> protest legislation such as the Patriot Act enthusiastically acceed to
> giving the cloud providers far access to their private lives than any
> government dreams of having.

Google is the government of the zombies, by the zombies, for the
zombies.

:-D

Mark Crispin <markrcrispin@panda.com> writes:

> Put another way, the market doesn't want an IMAP server. It wants a
> turnkey complete mail server solution (of which IMAP service is a
> small piece).

I would have thought security and spam filtering concerns make
(boundary) mail exchange a distinctly separate problem to that of
mailstore access.

Cheers

- Joel