[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

RE: Web-based e-mail system?



> > 
> >> I currently use a fetchmail / procmail / mbox / mutt e-mail setup, 
> >> with ssmtp (properly linked through `sendmail` of course) for 
> >> sending. I would really like to have a web mail system set 
> up so that 
> >> I can at least read, if not send, e-mail from my website as well.
> >>
> >> Does anyone know of a package that can put mbox mail on 
> the web? It 
> >> sounds kind of silly, given the inefficiency of mbox, so I'm not 
> >> holding high hopes, but if anyone has info. about it, that'd be 
> >> great.
> > 
> > 
> > I was using mbox at first, but eventually bit the bullet 
> and switched 
> > to
> > maildir.  I'm using courier-imap and squirrelmail, and am 
> very happy 
> > with it.  I also use mutt when I'm logged into the console, and 
> > sometimes Mozilla mail from my Windows box through IMAP.
> > 
> > Procmail will deliver to maildir just fine, so there's no reason to
> > stick with mbox.  (I used mutt to move my messages from my 
> mbox files to 
> > maildir, via the IMAP server).  If you need more details 
> about setting 
> > any of it up, just ask.
> > 
> > If you really want to stick with your mbox files, I think 
> uw-imap will
> > handle them, but I don't recommend it (it's SLOW).  I 
> started with that 
> > and squirrelmail.
> > 
> 
> Slow for how many users?
> How slow is slow?
> 
> I've played with SquirrelMail/IMAP for a few weeks and for a 
> few users 
> it's been just fine. Looking at the logs I do see that it's 
> constantly 
> re-connecting to the server with each page change (as is 
> expected unless 
> it could have some sort of IMAP proxy.)
> 
> I was just wondering what your experiance with SLOW was so I could be 
> aware of potential future issues.
> 
> --
> Jacob


You could consider the imapproxy available on the Horde website.  I have
been using it for nearly a year with no problems.

another one is www.imapproxy.org, but I have no experience of this.

Matt




Reply to: