From owner-freebsd-security  Fri Dec  4 07:16:54 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA10737
          for freebsd-security-outgoing; Fri, 4 Dec 1998 07:16:54 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from ocean.campus.luth.se (ocean.campus.luth.se [130.240.194.116])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA10728;
          Fri, 4 Dec 1998 07:16:47 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from karpen@ocean.campus.luth.se)
Received: (from karpen@localhost)
	by ocean.campus.luth.se (8.9.1/8.9.1) id QAA27344;
	Fri, 4 Dec 1998 16:14:06 +0100 (CET)
	(envelope-from karpen)
From: Mikael Karpberg <karpen@ocean.campus.luth.se>
Message-Id: <199812041514.QAA27344@ocean.campus.luth.se>
Subject: Re: mail.local
In-Reply-To: <55915.912748357@gjp.erols.com> from Gary Palmer at "Dec 4, 98 00:12:37 am"
To: gpalmer@FreeBSD.ORG (Gary Palmer)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 16:14:06 +0100 (CET)
Cc: security@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL32 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

According to Gary Palmer:
> Please don't use IMAP. It is a bloated ``designed by committee''
> protocol and looks like a nightmare to impliment in an efficient
> (scalable) fashion. Makes me want to write my own protocol :(

I haven't used any of those postoffice protocols.
I just use Real Mailboxes(tm). Neither have I written any implementations
of such protocols, si I really don't know much about it. But people I
talk to tend to think that IMAP is the way to go. Now, I don't know, but if
I remember correctly, the thing goes: It's works. It's secure. POP isn't.

What do you suggest instead of IMAP, and what's wrong with it?

  /Mikael

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message