On 2010-09-10 8:35 PM, Nick Edwards <nick.z.edwa...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 12:36 AM, Charles Marcus > <cmar...@media-brokers.com <mailto:cmar...@media-brokers.com>> wrote: >>> Please note, we are silent lurkers, we know some of you are on both >>> lists, and aware of the threads I speak of, so are not interested in >>> your POV in for's or against's or what they have said,
>> Even if your understanding/comprehension (POV) of said thread(s) and/or >> issue(s) is flawed? > How can it be flawed Your asking about a POP server, which has nothing to do with IMAP+INDEXES - two entirely different situations - which plainly shows that your understanding/comprehension (POV) in this regard is flawed. > When the Dovecot author himself admitted the situation. According to Timo the problem/situation is with IMAP+INDEXES over NFS, and is inherent to the way NFS caching works (so has nothing to do with Dovecot per se). POP simply doesn't suffer from the same problems because it works differently. But like I said, use whatever you want... Oh - and the reason I didn't offer any alternatives are: 1. There aren't any other decent free ones that I know of, except maybe QPOPPER, but it seems to be a bit stagnant of late, and 2. If you would take off the blinders, you'd see that your *reasons* for wanting to avoid both Courier and Dovecot are just plain wrong, meaning, you could use either without any problems whatsoever. <snip the rest of the silly junk and I'll shut up now> -- Best regards, Charles
