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

I'd like to set up an IMAP server on a Mac OS X box that's connected
to the Internet. I intend on enabling SSL on it. The IMAP server
software needn't be anything fancy; I don't need a graphic interface
to it or anything. As long as it compiles and runs on Unix/Linux, I'll
be fine. What I'm most concerned with is security - I don't want
someone to be able to cause trouble through the IMAP port.

What's the best and/or most popular open-source IMAP server out there
these days? Is UW-IMAP still the gold standard, or has another product
overtaken it?

On Thu, 3 Jul 2008, Brian Kendig posted:
> What's the best and/or most popular open-source IMAP server out there
> these days? Is UW-IMAP still the gold standard, or has another product
> overtaken it?

UW imapd is still the reference implementation. It remains the easiest to
install, especially if you don't wish to change your mailbox format from
the traditional UNIX ("mbox") format. Its security history in recent
years has been pretty good.

However, note that UW ended development in May 2008 with imap-2007b.

I forked, and created Panda imapd (imap-2008). There is limited ongoing
work for my own purposes. For example, I discovered that UW imapd is not
fully compliant with RFC 5051, and that is fixed in Panda imapd. I may
also implement some of the LEMONADE stuff.

Unfortunately, at the current time, I have no distribution plans due to
lack of funding. Any change in those plans will be announced in
http://panda.com/imap/

Another open-source IMAP server that supports mbox format is Dovecot.
The developer of Dovecot and I have been engaged in a friendly competition
for a while now, in which he develops some new torture test that breaks
all IMAP servers, and then he and I scramble to see if it gets fixed in
Dovecot or UW/Panda first. This has had the effect of making Dovecot and
UW/Panda be quite a bit more compliant and robust, particularly with
high-intensity multiple access, than other servers.

I see that he currently has an one-up on me, so it's my turn to play
catch-up. I'll have to ask him what he found.

However, note that this is not with mbox format; this is with the
preferred mail stores (extended maildir on Dovecot, mix in UW/Panda).
mbox format has legacy issues that keep it from working optimally for
IMAP, no matter which server you use.

-- 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.

Brian Kendig <brian@enchanter.net> wrote:
> I'd like to set up an IMAP server on a Mac OS X box that's connected
> to the Internet. I intend on enabling SSL on it. The IMAP server
> software needn't be anything fancy; I don't need a graphic interface
> to it or anything. As long as it compiles and runs on Unix/Linux, I'll
> be fine. What I'm most concerned with is security - I don't want
> someone to be able to cause trouble through the IMAP port.
>
> What's the best and/or most popular open-source IMAP server out there
> these days? Is UW-IMAP still the gold standard, or has another product
> overtaken it?

IÂ*prefer cyrus, although it is a bit of a black box: access to the mail
storage is through cyrus only, there should be no direct access to those
mailboxes (other than normal file or image based backup, of course).

Ralf
--
Ralf Döblitz * Schapenstraße 6 * 38104 Braunschweig * Germany
Phone: +49-531-2361223 Fax: +49-531-2361224 mailto:doeblitz@doeblitz.net
Homepage: http://www.escape.de/users/selene/
Mit UTF-8 kann man gleichzeitig äöüßÄÖÜæœłø‱¼½¾¤¹²³¢€£¥¶ §¬÷×±©®™¡¿ verwenden…

> Another open-source IMAP server that supports mbox format is Dovecot.
> The developer of Dovecot and I have been engaged in a friendly competition
> for a while now, in which he develops some new torture test that breaks
> all IMAP servers, and then he and I scramble to see if it gets fixed in
> Dovecot or UW/Panda first. This has had the effect of making Dovecot and
> UW/Panda be quite a bit more compliant and robust, particularly with
> high-intensity multiple access, than other servers.

> Unfortunately, at the current time, I have no distribution plans

A fork with no audience might as well not exist.

Yet Dovecot is available. Guess which one will gain marketshare? If only
due to actually BEING available.

Mark Crispin <mrc@panda.com> wrote:

> UW imapd is still the reference implementation. It remains the easiest to
> install, especially if you don't wish to change your mailbox format from
> the traditional UNIX ("mbox") format. Its security history in recent
> years has been pretty good.

I have installed bincimap on my machine. This is a lightweight IMAP
server using maildir format, and can run from the Internet Superserver
Daemon.

Unfortunately, I don't know how to connect the client at the moment, but
this is due to my lack of experience and knowledge of IMAP, rather than
a problem with the software.

There are of course courier-imap and dovecot-imap packages. I have had
courier-imap working in the past. That was very easy to setup on a
Debian based computer.

There is also cyrus-imap, which uses a database engine, rather than
maildir or mbox storage.

The choice is yours really. I want to learn to use bincimap, but I am
struggling to find tutorials and people knowledgeable enough to help me.

Regards,

Mark.

--
Mark Hobley,
393 Quinton Road West,
Quinton, BIRMINGHAM.
B32 1QE.

On Jul 3, 10:22 am, Mark Crispin <m...@Panda.COM> wrote:
> However, note that UW ended development in May 2008 with imap-2007b.

Ended development, as in this is the final version? I'm just curious -
where did you hear this news? I don't see anything on 'http://
www.washington.edu/imap/' to indicate that development has ended, nor
can I find anything relevant through a web search...

On Thu, 3 Jul 2008, Bill Kearney posted:
>> Unfortunately, at the current time, I have no distribution plans
> A fork with no audience might as well not exist.

Sadly, I agree.

As much as I would love to continue development and support of UW IMAP (as
Panda IMAP), the unfortunate reality is that it won't happen without
funding. It was clear at once that such funding is extremely unlikely.

> Yet Dovecot is available. Guess which one will gain marketshare? If only
> due to actually BEING available.

Marketshare only matters if the market produces income, either directly or
indirectly (e.g., loss leaders that sell other products). That isn't the
case with IMAP servers. Nobody is beating down anyone's doors for newer
and fancier IMAP servers.

There is no such thing as "free software". Someone always pays for it,
even if it is the developer self-funding. I can self-fund Panda IMAP for
my personal needs; but I can't do so for anyone else.

Even angel funders want a proposal that shows some form of return...

I'm sorry. The silver lining in this cloud is that UW IMAP with mix
format is in pretty good state, and ought to provide good service for the
next several years before it will need to be retired. This will give you
time to deploy Exchange and/or choose a cloud provider (which is the
direction that most enterprises are taking).

Regretfully,

-- 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 Thu, 3 Jul 2008, Brian Kendig posted:
> On Jul 3, 10:22 am, Mark Crispin <m...@Panda.COM> wrote:
>> However, note that UW ended development in May 2008 with imap-2007b.
> Ended development, as in this is the final version? I'm just curious -
> where did you hear this news? I don't see anything on 'http://
> www.washington.edu/imap/' to indicate that development has ended, nor
> can I find anything relevant through a web search...

As reported in:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ayoffs22m.html

"...the increasing availability of free or low-cost services on the Web
through companies such as Google, Microsoft and Amazon.com are rendering
some UW services - uch as e-mail and document sharing —- solete."

It is extremely unlikely that UW will continue UW IMAP development without
the developer who wrote 100% of its code.

-- 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.

> It is extremely unlikely that UW will continue UW IMAP development without
> the developer who wrote 100% of its code.

And no doubt this is also circling the fringes of sour grapes over being let
go. Don't get me wrong, I certainly sympathize. But dangling word of
improvements to an unreleased fork doesn't do much to engender support.
Perhaps it would be better to see it forked onto sourceforge or one of the
many other open source communities.

On Sat, 5 Jul 2008, Bill Kearney posted:
> Perhaps it would be better to see it forked onto sourceforge or one of the
> many other open source communities.

Nothing stops you from doing that. Just get the tarball from UW, create
the sourceforge project, and set yourself up as the developer/maintainer.
The Apache license, and the earlier free-fork license, give you that
right.

You've also totally missed what's going on.

I've known for at least 5 years that UW was exiting the UNIX-based email
business. UW, like many of its peers, is moving its messaging to a
combination of cloud (Gmail, Live @ Edu, etc.) services and a few islands
of Exchange. Email is no longer a "core service" that requires internal
development and support.

True, I was expecting a more gradual/graceful ending and transition; not
just for myself but for my long-time users. Nonetheless, I'm grateful
that IMAP was kept going at UW for so long. It was for much longer than
it had a right to be kept going, especially with an additional year from
the Mellon grant.

The bottom line is that UW is no longer paying to keep the UW IMAP train
rolling. It is not likely that they ever will again. They have no need
for it, and I expect that their UW IMAP servers will be shutting down in
the not-too-distant future.

I started a much smaller train rolling for my own purposes, and it has
some new stuff. Without funding, it can not take freeloaders the way that
UW did.

I felt that the least I can do, rather than leave my long-time users high
and dry, is put out a call and see if maybe there is a chance of getting
funding (I doubt it); failing that, to offer the opportunity to be a
paying passenger on the little train for a short while.

It's OK with me if it fades away. I expect it to. I've worked on that
software for over 20 years. That's a long time for a project.

I'm sorry if this offends you. It is not my intent, and you are not my
target audience. I only want to reach the few sites who are interested in
doing a last little train-ride with me.

-- 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.