Re: Alternative c-client

On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Ralf Lang <lang@b1-systems.de> wrote: > On 09.03.2014 23:43, Marco Pivetta wrote: >> On 9 March 2014 23:39, Matt Ficken <themattficken@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Unfortunately for inclusion in core, its not c. >>> >> >> Is that really a negative note? As long as there is a *secure* solution, a >> PHP implementation should be preferable. >> >> Marco Pivetta > > There are a number of high performance feature rich php-only imap > implementations, horde_imap being one of them. > > I see no need for a c client. But do as you like if you have time to > maintain it. I am not in favor in keeping ext/imap. I already stated it a couple of times already on this list and already asked to remove it from core. However there were objections and that's why I propose to rely on a maintained c-client instead of the dead UW's c-client, which has so many security issues as a bonus. Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org