Reliability of runbox

[digp]

Views please.

I am thinking of hosting a domain for email or may be just get a runbox account.

Thanks.

[digp]

"Error: Signups temporarily disallowed. Please contact Runbox Support at support@runbox.com."

What's that all about?

[adrian44]

Web interface never failed me in 4+ years.

[Geir]

digp: Are you still getting that error? What is the URL, please?

Runbox has a 99.96% uptime record the past year, and we have several hardware upgrades planned that should improve this further.

- Geir

[adamevans]

Originally Posted by digp

Views please.

My view's easy:

If you intend on using IMAP at all, RUN. RUN NOW.

It's been broken for over a year (longer, depending on who you ask) and they have done little to nothing to fix it. It doesn't work right. It's not going to work right. It will cause you heartache and misery. Don't get sucked into the blackhole of a broken email service that you keep using because you've attached everything to that email address.

[digp]

I've gone with gmail for now -but I much prefer the Runbox interface although Gmail has its bonuses too (e.g. conversation threads, labels)

I doubt I would use IMAP but I would want to receive email on my blackberry.

[Geir]

While it's true that the current IMAP server is having intermittent slowness issues and minor bugs (as described in the documentation), it's far from "broken". And the new IMAP server currently in testing on port 1143 isn't broken at all -- in fact, the only major remaining problem is actually caused by a bug in Thunderbird, for which we have developed a workaround currently being tested.

The speed of your IMAP connection will depend greatly on the size of your account, the time of day, and, apparently, the client in use. Just now I tested the default IMAP server with an account containing around 150 000 messages with Windows Mail, and the Inbox updated immediately.

We have invested a great deal in the new IMAP server now being finalized, showing that we take your complaints seriously, and we're planning further improvements that will increase overall (and IMAP) performance.

- Geir

[adamevans]

Originally Posted by Geir

While it's true that the current IMAP server is having intermittent slowness issues and minor bugs (as described in the documentation), it's far from "broken".

I'm sorry, Geir, but with all respect, this is blatantly false.

The IMAP absolutely is broken in the truest definition of the word. It does NOT work in the way that it should, and sometimes does not work at all. BROKEN.

And the slowness has never been intermittent for many of us, nor would we call functionality-breaking bugs "minor."

I also object to the way your first statement makes it sound as though this IMAP problem is just something happening to be going on at the moment. This problem has been going on for at least nearly two years now, and you know that full well.

But thanks for the company spin.

[carverrn]

Yes, the problems with the IMAP server on ports 143/993 have been going on for over two years. That's because the IMAP server on that port hasn't changed yet and it does have bugs with it. I suppose "minor" may not be a term someone would use if they are regularly encountering those bugs but not everyone does.

The beta-test IMAP server on port 1143 has been in development for a while and at this time there are no outstanding bugs with it. This last issue has been identified as a known bug in in Thunderbird but we are implementing a fix at the server to deal with it since it can cause resource and performance problems on the server.

If you are using the beta-test IMAP server on port 1143 and still have problems please post the problem.

With regards to slowness, we believe there will be performance improvements once the new IMAP server is fully deployed and the old IMAP server is shutdown.

Regards,
Rich

[Geir]

adamevans,

We understand that the IMAP server is not working as it should for you, for others who have posted on this board, and probably for some additional users who have not posted here or otherwise notified us. At the same time, it's worth noting that Runbox does have thousands of other IMAP users with a different, and mostly positive, experience. Since you appeared to be making general statements about the former, current, and future status of Runbox' IMAP server, we felt it appropriate to express a more balanced view from our perspective.

We are fully aware of the issues we (and you) have been having with the IMAP server, as can be seen from the many IMAP threads here in the forum. We've tried to explain in detail how we have been working to correct the problems, and why it has taken such a long time (mostly due to a lack of resources).

We have been working on the new IMAP server as steadily as we've been able to, all other challenges taken into consideration. Thus far we've made 82 revisions to 26 files in the original Courier IMAP server on which the Runbox server is based. These modifications are required because, as has been mentioned elsewhere, Runbox is a database accelerated email system that stores message metadata in a non-standard way (message header information is available in a database). This system design decision was made early on (in 2000, before a Runbox IMAP server was even conceived of) to make the Runbox Webmail as efficient as possible, and is part of the reason Runbox overall performs quite well in spite of the amount of data being processed and stored.

Once the new version of the Runbox-specific IMAP server is complete -- and this is a major upgrade spanning 4-5 years -- further upgrades should be much easier to implement. It will also allow us to correct an actual system design problem -- the message storage structure on disk, which is currently flat (non-hierarchical) -- and improve especially IMAP performance significantly.

As this post is being written a new version of the beta IMAP server is being installed (on port 1143 as usual), which addresses the Thunderbird message duplication bug described elsewhere. We're looking forward to confirmations that this version is working as expected, at which point we should be ready to deploy it fully.

- Geir

[digp]

So is runbox unreliable or not I don't seem to have got a straight answer.

[hajonez]

Hi digp,

Yes this thread has become a discussion about the IMAP server, which I imagine is not your primary concern. I've been using Runbox as my primary email provider since February 2001 so feel well placed to comment on the company's reliability.

My overall experience has been incredibly positive as far as reliability is concerned. Yes, there have been a couple of periods of downtime in the seven years I've been using Runbox but nothing that led to the loss of any email or anything similar. Last year I travelled through Europe for seven months and was so thankful for Runbox's reliability: every time I checked my mail, Runbox's web interface was up and running as expected; that sort of reliability is a great comfort when travelling or using the service for commercial purposes.

I currently have 10s of thousands of emails sitting on Runbox's servers and I feel very confident about having them there.

From a customer perspective, I've been very happy with Runbox's reliability over seven years. Others, of course, might have different opinions but I've had a very positive experience.

- Henry

[digp]

Please select the file containing your contacts to import them to your Runbox Address Book.

The CSV (Comma Separated Values) file must contain data separated by commas, semicolons, or tabs.

..........


Error: The CSV file could not be read


WELL fastmail can read it , so what is the problem. hardly a good start.

[kservik]

The error was the csv file, if I remember correctly?

[dbowdley]

Originally Posted by digp

So is runbox unreliable or not I don't seem to have got a straight answer.

Straight answer - yes, very reliable in my personal experience, and the experience of the organisations that I work with who use it for customer support, webspace and personal emails with domains. I don't have any hesitation in recommending Runbox, and their support is the best and most personal I have ever received.

Dave