Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 63235
Create rpms for imap-utils
Last modified: 2007-04-18 12:41:53 EDT
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 Galeon/1.2.0 (X11; Linux i686; U;) Gecko/20020311
Description of problem:
The UW imap server installation can be enhanced with many utilities that are
distributed in the imap-utils package. Some of these like dmail, are quite
essential if say one wants to use procmail with imap. It would be nice if these
were official RPMs for this package.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Steps to Reproduce:
In order to install imap-utils, one actually needs the source for imap. So it
is non-trivial to add this to a system where one has imap installed from RPMs.
So currently if one wants to get these utilities, the cleanest way is to get rid
of the imap RPM and install both imap and imap-utils from source.
Deferring for consideration in a future release.
*** Bug 65028 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I've investigated the tools, and I do not perceive them to be really
that useful to the wider userbase, but rather only to a very small
portion of the userbase. Also, UW's licences for their software leave
a lot to be desired, as do the quality of their code, and the timeliness
of bugfixes to the public.
Due to all of these factors, I've decided not to add these utilities
to the distribution.
- I don't know any other way except using dmail to do server-side filtering with
UW IMAP using the mbx format (the format recommended by the UW IMAP docs).
So at least that particular program is crucial for me.
- If Red Hat doesn't trust UW's coding standards, why do they include their IMAP
server (something that handles mail) in their distribution?
*** Bug 77096 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Just as an update to this occasionally recurring request... the license
of UW-imap is actually not the same as the pine license, so it is
aparently considerably open source after reading the license in the
latest sources when someone pointed this out to me.
Nonetheless.... this clarification does not change the resolution of this
request. I just wanted to clear up the license issue.
*** Bug 84560 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 84513 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***