On Tue, Feb 23, 1999 at 09:35:42AM +0000, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
> Just to comment on Alan's results a little....
>
> } qpopper 4 sites
>
> Used to lead the pack in features (on a pop daemon???), now its yet
> another pop daemon.
>
> } cucipop 3 sites
>
> cucipop is fast, uses little memory, and appears secure. The user
> authentication is modular - its easy to drop in a different authentication
> method. The code is cryptic in the extreme but when you understand it,
> appears clean. This is my pop daemon of choice if you use mbox
I've read that cucipop does not make temporary copies of the mbox file, but
edits it "in place". How does this fare under heavy use? I tried to use
qpopper in SERVER_MODE, so that access to mailboxes would be faster, but I
ended up with corrupt mailboxes. Typically, either the From_ line would
have disappeared or there would an X-UIDL header above the From_ line,
although I had compiled the popper not to update the status of messages. I
had so many users complaining that I switched back to usual mode of
operation. This episode also put me off trying cucipop, because I thought
it might suffer similarly. I would appreciate any opinion on qpopper
(server mode) vs. cucipop. My site is small (4500 mailboxes) and only exim
writes to the mailboxes (besides to POP server).
--
Anand
System Administrator
Africa Online Ltd
http://www.anand.org
--
*** Exim information can be found at
http://www.exim.org/ ***
