proposal: imap, imap-server, and imap-util

[Igor Pechtchanski]

On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Abraham Backus wrote:

> I haven't checked that, but I did notice that there's a SSLTYPE=unix option
> to pass to make that allows plaintext for both ssl and non-ssl.  Of course,
> there's still the prompt during make that this is a non-standard option
> according to IESG.  If I build it with this option, one can always decide to
> not put an "imap" entry in /etc/inetd.conf and just have an "imaps" entry.
>
> Which sounds better to you guys?
> a) the default (only allow plaintext passwords via ssl)
> b) build allowing plaintext passwords regardless of whether ssl is used
> c) build two sets of binaries

(c) sounds good, but wouldn't it logically evolve into two sets of
packages, eventually?

> One more thing before I go make another package....
> are the imapd, ipop3d, and ipop2d names ok, or should they be prefixed with
> uw-?

The trend seems to be "uw-imapd" and create a symbolic link to "imapd" in
a postinstall script (if nonexistent).

> thanks!
> -Abe
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> > Isn't that what RedHat does eg., ipop3d (non-ssl) and ipop3ds
> > (ssl)...  Either way I think it's a good idea.

Just a quick note: the "s" probably goes before the "d" ("d" stands for
"daemon", right?)
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_		pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		igor@watson.ibm.com
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		Igor Pechtchanski
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty.
  -- Leto II