Pros of Roundcubemail

• Lightweight and focused solely on webmail functionality
• Extensive plugin ecosystem for customization
• Easier to integrate into existing email setups

Cons of Roundcubemail

• Requires separate mail server setup and configuration
• Limited built-in security features compared to Mailcow
• Lacks comprehensive email management tools out-of-the-box

Code Comparison

Roundcubemail (PHP):

$rcmail = rcmail::get_instance();
$rcmail->add_handler('plugin.message_highlight', array($this, 'message_highlight'));
$rcmail->output->add_handler('message_headers', array($this, 'message_headers'));

Mailcow (Docker Compose):

version: '2.1'
services:
  dovecot-mailcow:
    image: mailcow/dovecot:1.8
    volumes:
      - ./data/dkim/:/etc/dkim/

Roundcubemail focuses on webmail interface code, while Mailcow uses Docker Compose to orchestrate various email-related services. Roundcubemail's code is primarily PHP-based, dealing with UI and plugins. Mailcow's configuration is more infrastructure-oriented, defining Docker services and their relationships.

Pros of iRedMail

• Supports multiple operating systems (Linux, BSD)
• Offers both open-source and commercial editions
• Provides a web-based installation wizard for easier setup

Cons of iRedMail

• Less frequent updates compared to Mailcow
• Requires more manual configuration for advanced features
• Limited containerization options

Code Comparison

iRedMail configuration example:

export HOSTNAME='mail.example.com'
export FIRST_MAIL_DOMAIN='example.com'
export FIRST_MAIL_DOMAIN_ADMIN_PASSWORD='password'

Mailcow configuration example:

MAILCOW_HOSTNAME=mail.example.com
DBNAME=mailcow
DBUSER=mailcow
DBPASS=mysafepassword

Both projects aim to simplify email server setup, but they take different approaches. iRedMail offers a traditional installation method with support for various operating systems, while Mailcow focuses on a Docker-based deployment. iRedMail's configuration is typically done through shell scripts and configuration files, whereas Mailcow uses YAML for its primary configuration. Mailcow's containerized approach may provide easier scalability and maintenance for some users, while iRedMail's traditional setup might be more familiar to system administrators accustomed to standard server configurations.

Pros of docker-mailserver

• Lightweight and minimalistic approach, focusing on core mail server functionality
• Highly customizable through environment variables and configuration files
• Easier to understand and modify for users with specific requirements

Cons of docker-mailserver

• Lacks a web-based administration interface, requiring more manual configuration
• Fewer built-in security features and spam protection tools
• Limited documentation compared to Mailcow

Code Comparison

docker-mailserver configuration example:

version: '2'
services:
  mailserver:
    image: docker-mailserver/docker-mailserver:latest
    hostname: mail.example.com
    domainname: example.com
    container_name: mailserver

Mailcow configuration example:

version: '2.1'
services:
  dovecot-mailcow:
    image: mailcow/dovecot:1.8
    volumes:
      - ./data/vmail:/var/vmail
    environment:
      - TZ=${TZ}

Both projects use Docker Compose for deployment, but Mailcow has a more complex setup with multiple services and pre-configured options. docker-mailserver offers a single container solution with more flexibility for custom configurations.

While docker-mailserver is ideal for users who prefer a hands-on approach and want to fine-tune their mail server, Mailcow provides a more comprehensive and user-friendly solution with additional features and a web interface for easier management.

Pros of Mailu

• More lightweight and modular architecture
• Easier to customize and extend
• Better support for non-x86 architectures (e.g., ARM)

Cons of Mailu

• Less feature-rich out of the box
• Smaller community and less frequent updates
• Documentation can be less comprehensive

Code Comparison

Mailu configuration example:

version: '2.2'
services:
  front:
    image: ${DOCKER_ORG:-mailu}/${DOCKER_PREFIX:-}nginx:${MAILU_VERSION:-2.0}
    restart: always
    env_file: .env

Mailcow configuration example:

version: '2.1'
services:
  nginx-mailcow:
    image: nginx:mainline-alpine
    container_name: nginx-mailcow
    restart: always
    dns:
      - 172.22.1.254

Both projects use Docker Compose for deployment, but Mailu's configuration tends to be more concise and flexible, while Mailcow's is more detailed and preconfigured. Mailu allows for easier customization of individual components, whereas Mailcow provides a more comprehensive, integrated solution out of the box.