dovecot - Nov 2004 - noob - Outlook Duplicate Problem Question

Hi,
	I use dovecot 0.99-11 with sendmail latest, and clamav-milter, and 
spamass-milter. Whole setup works great. We only use dovecot for pop3, 
no imap. We use primarily Outlook 2000-2003 for a client. I have a 
couple of users who prefer to leave a copy of each message on the 
server.

	I read the archives about the Outlook Duplicate Message problem 
regarding the setting 'Leave a copy on the Server'. I read that someone 
fixed this by changing the order of the UIDL from datestamp.message# to 
message#.datestamp. My question is if I make that change in my source 
for 0.99-11, will the 1.0 version have a fix for this included, or 
should I look for another pop3 server? I'd like to continue to use 
dovecot as it is very light and fast, but I'm trying to eliminate using 
source compiled binaries on my production servers, and letting YUM do 
my updates for me. I can compile this version from source, using the 
fix that was mentioned in the September Archives for this list, if I 
know that the problem (which is an MS problem, go figure) will be gone 
in future RPM binary packages.

Thanks for any info or help.

Jeff Ramsey
MIS Administrator
Tubafor Mill, Inc.

On 9.11.2004, at 18:53, Jeff Ramsey wrote:
> 	I read the archives about the Outlook Duplicate Message problem 
> regarding the setting 'Leave a copy on the Server'. I read that 
> someone fixed this by changing the order of the UIDL from 
> datestamp.message# to message#.datestamp. My question is if I make 
> that change in my source for 0.99-11, will the 1.0 version have a fix 
> for this included, or should I look for another pop3 server? I'd like 
> to continue to use dovecot as it is very light and fast, but I'm 
> trying to eliminate using source compiled binaries on my production 
> servers, and letting YUM do my updates for me. I can compile this 
> version from source, using the fix that was mentioned in the September 
> Archives for this list, if I know that the problem (which is an MS 
> problem, go figure) will be gone in future RPM binary packages.
It's not a good idea anymore to change the default UIDL generation, but 
I will most likely make it configurable before v1.0.

Dovecot 0.99.x isn't very good as pop3 server, so it wouldn't be a bad 
idea to try another pop3 server either.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL:
<http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20041112/1504ff75/attachment-0001.bin>

Timo;
   You suggested using another POP server.  Do you have a suggestion for a POP 
server?  (We're using mbox format, Dovecot .99.11 )

-- 
Daniel Graham
graham at molbio.uoregon.edu

541-346-5079 (voice)
541-346-4854 (FAX)

Institute of Molecular Biology
1229 University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403-1229

On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 04:51:17PM +0200, Timo Sirainen
wrote:
> 
> Dovecot 0.99.x isn't very good as pop3 server, so it wouldn't be a
bad
> idea to try another pop3 server either.
I'm using 0.99.10.4 for pop3 -- should I be concerned about
that statement?  :-)

I mean, it does appear to work for what we use it for.

(I continue to build and try the 1.0-test versions in isolated
environments, but haven't made the leap to using it for real.)

mm