also sprach Kyle Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.08.14.1833 +0200]: >> I understand that dovecot's deliver does a little more than >> deliver: > > It also understands the 'seive' filter language (an alternative to > procmail).
I don't consider it an alternative to procmail because you cannot pass mail to external programmes, like spamassassin or vacation. Sure, sieve has its own vacation module, but I find that to be rather limited. See this thread: http://dovecot.org/list/dovecot/2007-August/024686.html >> What do you think will be less resource-heavy: calling deliver >> for every mail received *in addition to* procmail, or letting the >> IMAP server update the metadata on access? > > Unless you're cutting it close to the limit on what your server > can handle, that's probably the wrong question to ask. A better > question is: which gives my users better performance? Good point. The users, however, as far as I know, all use tools like offlineimap to synchronise in the background, so it hardly matters. > your users aren't paying attention. Dovecot will *seem* snappier > if you do the indexing work on delivery rather than on access, > even though it may spend more CPU cycles overall to do so. Does anyone have hard facts on how much the server process loses if it encounters a folder with an index inconsistency? -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:"; [EMAIL PROTECTED] mulutlitithtrhreeaadededd s siigngnatatuurere spamtraps: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)
