[CentOS] Re: centos] memory leak in Centos 4.1 and 4.0

[Craig White]

On Mon, 2005-10-03 at 11:20 -0700, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On 10/3/05, Craig White <craigwhite at azapple.com> wrote:
> > 2 - few users are invested in procmail scripts that I have seen
> 
> You're apparently not looking at the right users.  RedHat has been
> using procmail as the default local delivery agent for a very long
> time.
---
indeed - right set or wrong set of users is probably determined by one's
perspective. 
----
> 
> Independent of procmail/sieve, you're also assuming that the users
> never access their mail except via IMAP, and therefore that the
> usenet-like storage model used by cyrus is not an issue; and, that no
> existing mailboxes will have to be imported into the cyrus structure.
----
indeed again - the original poster was asking about memory leaks in
dovecot and cyrus-imapd is the 'other' imapd in CentOS 4
distribution...which relates to Russ's (?) Herrold's encouragement to
use uw-imap. He is a pretty sharp dude and I wanted to needle him on his
fall back to uw-imap.

and yes, moving an existing mail store from one type to another does
involve some challenges but thankfully, there are scripts around to do
that very thing. Likewise, moving the seen state from one imap server to
another is painful but can be done.

Of course the real problem I had was blindly using uw-imap all those
years in mbox format and when I migrated to cyrus-imapd I couldn't
believe the performance gain. Perhaps uw-imap or dovecot with maildir
can get fairly close performance wise, which I now know (but didn't way
back then), uw-imap is capable of creating/using maildir format for it's
mail store.

In the final analysis though, serious consideration needs to be given to
the methodology and daemon used for mail delivery for workgroup and
larger and the one time efforts of setup and conversion are probably not
in the long term meaningful. I found using ldap, postfix and cyrus-imapd
eminently workable including mail delivery with aliases.

Craig


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.