Hide Forgot
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): How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: Not relevant. Additional info: 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.
My rebuttal: - 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. ***