IMAP proxy recommendations.
sofkam at rpi.edu
Fri Dec 13 15:10:49 EST 2013
On 2013-12-12 13:25, ktm at rice.edu wrote:
> We also use
> imapproxy to provide a stateful connection for our webmail system to
> our IMAP proxy. We can definitely recommend this setup. In fact, when
> we moved our student to Google mail, the transition was made without
> the need to reconfigure any end user clients and our webmail worked
> as well. Please let me know if you have any questions about our use.
To clarify, you are running a webmail service, which connects to
imapproxy, which connects to NGinX, and all is well with the world. Did
this also work with Perdition? I'm concerned about proxies within
proxies and the load that may cause. But if Perdition has a high
per-connection overhead, placing imapproxy in front of it (on an
alternate port) may reduce the load. I am leaning towards Perdition
because it seemed a simpler setup (that might an illusion created by the
lack of documentation), and because of it's support for manage SIEVE.
Regarding SIEVE, support for it may be limited. Since Exchange does
not support SIEVE, we might not offer it except in special cases. As of
this moment, only a couple dozen people have discovered clients that
support it, and we have not rolled out a general SIEVE editor. I am
interested in any back-end agnostic SIEVE servers. Something that would
run on the proxy machines, and deliver email to the correct folder on
the back-end server, vacation respond, etc.
Michael D. Sofka sofkam at rpi.edu
C&MT Sr. Systems Programmer, Email, TeX, Epistemology
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
More information about the Info-cyrus