If the community has enough resources to fork the whole project, it would
probably be far more efficient and easier to just fork the Director component.
I’m not familiar enough with dovecot sources to tell if this is possible, but
if the community really wants to keep Director alive, maybe it
One of our developers wrote the whole LDAP integration in Dovecot, and I for
one am not happy with this move.
Jan Hugo
On November 2, 2022 6:16:21 PM GMT+01:00, Dave McGuire
wrote:
>
> It would certainly be a shame if that sort of thing started happening with
> Dovecot. Since day one, the
It would certainly be a shame if that sort of thing started happening
with Dovecot. Since day one, the Dovecot community has always been very
pleasant, friendly, and drama-free. If forks start happening due to
profiteering, that will irrevocably change the Dovecot community, with
I think the only thing they will gain is a community that is angry and will in
the end leave the product / fork the complete product.
Jan Hugo
On November 2, 2022 5:39:53 PM GMT+01:00, Brad Schuetz wrote:
>On 11/2/22 03:54, Aki Tuomi wrote:
>>> On 02/11/2022 11:55 EET Frank Wall wrote:
>>>
On 11/2/22 03:54, Aki Tuomi wrote:
On 02/11/2022 11:55 EET Frank Wall wrote:
On 2022-11-02 09:11, Aki Tuomi wrote:
You can also see the email sent by others which shows how you can do
this without replication, using proxy and passdb to direct users to
right backend. Which is basically what
> On 02/11/2022 11:55 EET Frank Wall wrote:
>
>
> On 2022-11-02 09:11, Aki Tuomi wrote:
> > You can also see the email sent by others which shows how you can do
> > this without replication, using proxy and passdb to direct users to
> > right backend. Which is basically what director does.
>
On 2022-11-02 09:11, Aki Tuomi wrote:
You can also see the email sent by others which shows how you can do
this without replication, using proxy and passdb to direct users to
right backend. Which is basically what director does.
It's not the same thing.
It is not critical functionality. You
> On 01/11/2022 17:58 EET Mark Moseley wrote:
>
>
> TL;DR:
>
> Sure, this affects medium/large/Enterprise folks (that's where I was using
> Director -- though currently retired, so no existing self-interest in this
> email).
>
> This will also affect *any* installation with a
On 2022-11-01 16:58, Mark Moseley wrote:
This *feels" to me like a parent company looking to remove features
from the open source version in order to add feature differentiation to
the paid version.
I've loved the Dovecot project for over a decade and a half. And
incidentally I have a very
Frank Wall skrev den 2022-11-01 23:44:
On 2022-11-01 16:58, Mark Moseley wrote:
TL;DR:
I think the real issue here is that Dovecot is removing *existing,
long-standing, critical functionality* from the open source version.
That
is a huge, huge red flag.
It certainly looks like
On 2022-11-01 16:58, Mark Moseley wrote:
TL;DR:
I think the real issue here is that Dovecot is removing *existing,
long-standing, critical functionality* from the open source version.
That
is a huge, huge red flag.
It certainly looks like a poor decision, driven by corporate
I think the real issue here is that Dovecot is removing _existing,
long-standing, critical_ functionality from the open source version.
That is a huge, huge red flag.
Clear enough. It would be great if dovecot decides to keep it in one way
or another in community release.
TL;DR:
Sure, this affects medium/large/Enterprise folks (that's where I was using
Director -- though currently retired, so no existing self-interest in this
email).
This will also affect *any* installation with a whopping two dovecot
servers with mdbox backends talking to a single
On 27.10.22 04:24, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Director never worked especially well, and for most use cases it's just
unnecessarily complex. I think usually it could be replaced with:
* Database (sql/ldap/whatever) containing user -> backend table.
* Configure Dovecot proxy to use this database
On 2022-10-27 08:31, William Edwards wrote:
Op 27 okt. 2022 om 04:25 heeft Timo Sirainen het
volgende geschreven:
Director never worked especially well, and for most use cases it's
just unnecessarily complex. I think usually it could be replaced with:
* Database (sql/ldap/whatever)
On 2022-10-27 08:31, William Edwards wrote:
Op 27 okt. 2022 om 04:25 heeft Timo Sirainen het
volgende geschreven:
Director never worked especially well, and for most use cases it's
just unnecessarily complex. I think usually it could be replaced with:
* Database (sql/ldap/whatever)
> Op 27 okt. 2022 om 04:25 heeft Timo Sirainen het volgende
> geschreven:
>
> Director never worked especially well, and for most use cases it's just
> unnecessarily complex. I think usually it could be replaced with:
>
> * Database (sql/ldap/whatever) containing user -> backend table.
> *
Director never worked especially well, and for most use cases it's just
unnecessarily complex. I think usually it could be replaced with:
* Database (sql/ldap/whatever) containing user -> backend table.
* Configure Dovecot proxy to use this database as passdb.
* For HA change dovemon to
Am 2022-10-26 11:52, schrieb Maciej Milaszewski:
Will there be a fork dovecot ?
Hm, maybe it would be possible to just fork the director component?
But it would still require a passionate C developer.
Whether LibreCot or FreeDirector will be born... I'd be happy to
support both! And don't
Maciej Milaszewski schreef op 2022-10-26 11:52:
Hi
What is the planned replacement like
doveadm director status
move / kick / flush
add /up / del
In 3.0 ?
This question has been answered in the thread.
Will there be a fork dovecot ?
If we, the community, start one, yes.
--
With kind
Hi
What is the planned replacement like
doveadm director status
move / kick / flush
add /up / del
In 3.0 ?
Will there be a fork dovecot ?
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
> On 26/10/2022 12:42 EEST Narcis Garcia wrote:
>
>
> El 26/10/22 a les 10:51, Aki Tuomi ha escrit:
> >
> >> On 26/10/2022 11:41 EEST Narcis Garcia wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> El 26/10/22 a les 10:29, MK ha escrit:
> To be clear, we are not removing proxying features from Dovecot either.
El 26/10/22 a les 10:51, Aki Tuomi ha escrit:
On 26/10/2022 11:41 EEST Narcis Garcia wrote:
El 26/10/22 a les 10:29, MK ha escrit:
To be clear, we are not removing proxying features from Dovecot either. Just
the director ring feature.
To be realy clear, you are not removing the proxy
> On 26/10/2022 11:41 EEST Narcis Garcia wrote:
>
>
> El 26/10/22 a les 10:29, MK ha escrit:
> >> To be clear, we are not removing proxying features from Dovecot either.
> >> Just the director ring feature.
> > To be realy clear, you are not removing the proxy feature in dovecot that
> >
El 26/10/22 a les 10:29, MK ha escrit:
To be clear, we are not removing proxying features from Dovecot either. Just
the director ring feature.
To be realy clear, you are not removing the proxy feature in dovecot that can
be used to proxy users to different backend server on which
the users
>To be clear, we are not removing proxying features from Dovecot either. Just
>the director ring feature.
To be realy clear, you are not removing the proxy feature in dovecot that can
be used to proxy users to different backend server on which
the users mailboxes are stored?
Thanks Oliver
On 2022-10-21 13:25, dove...@ptld.com wrote:
the problem that prevents most load balancers from handling the
backend imap/pop traffic is that the load balancer needs to be aware
of the context of each connection. which all boils down to the index
files
(only a single dovecot server can access
On 2022-10-24, Alessio Cecchi wrote:
>
> Director is not only used by large companies but also in small
> installations consisting of 2 servers and cannot be immediately replaced
> with Nginx as it has to manage the user/backend association for POP,
> IMAP, LMTP, Managesieve.
For the small
On 2022-10-21 11:38, Heiko Schlittermann wrote:
Apparently, Dovecot Director is going to be removed in the next major
version of Dovecot and the commercial Dovecot cluster architecture
will be its successor:
We - the communitiy - are free to continue development of the director.
So, who's
On 2022-10-21 10:54, Zhang Huangbin wrote:
On Oct 21, 2022, at 5:51 PM, Zhang Huangbin wrote:
If mailbox is in Maildir format (and stored on shared storage like
NFS), accessing it from different server may corrupt Dovecot index
files and mailbox becomes unaccessible. Director perfectly
the problem that prevents most load balancers from handling the backend
imap/pop traffic is that the load balancer needs to be aware of the context of
each connection. which all boils down to the index files
(only a single dovecot server can access a set of index files concurrently,
else the
I setup load-balance cluster for clients with HAProxy + KeepAlived +
Dovecot Director running in frontend servers, so sad we have to find
an alternative to replace Director in such case.
It's not about "small/medium" servers, but the demand of
imap/pop3/lmtp proxy service, especially in
> Op 21 okt. 2022 om 19:42 heeft Brendan Braybrook het
> volgende geschreven:
>
> On 2022-10-21 04:29, spi wrote:
>>> Am 21.10.22 um 13:14 schrieb Amol Kulkarni:
>>> Nginx has an mail proxy for pop, imap, smtp.
>>> Can it be used instead of director ?
>> Nginx can authenticate imap/smtp (and
On 2022-10-21 04:29, spi wrote:
Am 21.10.22 um 13:14 schrieb Amol Kulkarni:
Nginx has an mail proxy for pop, imap, smtp.
Can it be used instead of director ?
Nginx can authenticate imap/smtp (and probably pop3) users. If you that,
you can define a backend server the session is routed to.
Nginx is an excellent suggestion for the purpose. However I do not like
German client certificates. That is far too much "proof" of identification
18/21++ on a public network with nowhere to hide and those of us who are
not German citizens and do not have the advantage of a friendly local
On 2022-10-20 22:19, Zhang Huangbin wrote:
On Oct 21, 2022, at 4:19 AM, Antonio Leding wrote:
My understanding is that Director is targeted toward large enterprise mail
installations that will incorporate several servers for a given function. In such
an environment, Director would be the
To be clear, you are removing the Director...
---
Tom
On 2022-10-21 13:28, Aki Tuomi wrote:
To be clear, we are not removing proxying features from Dovecot either.
Just the director ring feature.
Aki
On 21/10/2022 14:14 EEST Amol Kulkarni wrote:
Nginx has an mail proxy for pop, imap,
Am 21.10.22 um 13:14 schrieb Amol Kulkarni:
Nginx has an mail proxy for pop, imap, smtp.
Can it be used instead of director ?
Nginx can authenticate imap/smtp (and probably pop3) users. If you that,
you can define a backend server the session is routed to. Currently I
use that approach to
To be clear, we are not removing proxying features from Dovecot either. Just
the director ring feature.
Aki
> On 21/10/2022 14:14 EEST Amol Kulkarni wrote:
>
>
> Nginx has an mail proxy for pop, imap, smtp.
> Can it be used instead of director ?
>
>
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 at 16:21, wrote:
Nginx has an mail proxy for pop, imap, smtp.
Can it be used instead of director ?
On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 at 16:21, wrote:
> On 2022-10-21 10:51, Zhang Huangbin wrote:
> >> On Oct 21, 2022, at 5:23 PM, hi@zakaria.website wrote:
> >>
> >> I was wondering if one can achieve the same implementation
On 2022-10-21 10:51, Zhang Huangbin wrote:
On Oct 21, 2022, at 5:23 PM, hi@zakaria.website wrote:
I was wondering if one can achieve the same implementation with
haproxy without dovecot director?
The most important part of Director is it makes sure same mail user
always proxied to same
> On Oct 21, 2022, at 5:51 PM, Zhang Huangbin wrote:
>
> If mailbox is in Maildir format (and stored on shared storage like NFS),
> accessing it from different server may corrupt Dovecot index files and
> mailbox becomes unaccessible. Director perfectly avoids this issue.
To be clear:
> On Oct 21, 2022, at 5:23 PM, hi@zakaria.website wrote:
>
> I was wondering if one can achieve the same implementation with haproxy
> without dovecot director?
The most important part of Director is it makes sure same mail user always
proxied to same backend IMAP server.
If mailbox is in
Steff Majeur (Do 20 Okt 2022 11:24:49 CEST):
> I recently stumbled upon the following commit on the Dovecot core Github
> repository:
> https://github.com/dovecot/core/commit/4a187116dc2311804be22724007d357323005358
>
> Apparently, Dovecot Director is going to be removed in the next major
On 2022-10-21 06:19, Zhang Huangbin wrote:
On Oct 21, 2022, at 4:19 AM, Antonio Leding wrote:
My understanding is that Director is targeted toward large enterprise
mail installations that will incorporate several servers for a given
function. In such an environment, Director would be the
> servers.
> >
> > I setup load-balance cluster for clients with HAProxy + KeepAlived +
> Dovecot Director running in frontend servers, so sad we have to find an
> alternative to replace Director in such case.
The code is still available you just need to build it yourself. I think they
will
El 21/10/22 a les 7:19, Zhang Huangbin ha escrit:
On Oct 21, 2022, at 4:19 AM, Antonio Leding wrote:
My understanding is that Director is targeted toward large enterprise mail
installations that will incorporate several servers for a given function. In such
an environment, Director would
You still need in some sense one coherent file system to store and retrieve
the mail messages. Although a load-balance cluster would still be quite
useful for rejecting the bulk of unauthorized connections.
I am sure in many cases a small/medium server can in fact sit and function
quite
Please post your solution.
Sent from my iPhone - please excuse brevity and typos
> On Oct 20, 2022, at 10:21 PM, Zhang Huangbin wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Oct 21, 2022, at 4:19 AM, Antonio Leding wrote:
>>
>> My understanding is that Director is targeted toward large enterprise mail
>>
> On Oct 21, 2022, at 4:19 AM, Antonio Leding wrote:
>
> My understanding is that Director is targeted toward large enterprise mail
> installations that will incorporate several servers for a given function. In
> such an environment, Director would be the fore-person\traffic-cop keeping
>
My understanding is that Director is targeted toward large enterprise
mail installations that will incorporate several servers for a given
function. In such an environment, Director would be the
fore-person\traffic-cop keeping things organized & squared-away.
In other scenarios, the “pri\bu”
Aki Tuomi said on Thu, 20 Oct 2022 22:04:42 +0300 (EEST)
>https://doc.dovecot.org/3.0/installation_guide/upgrading/from-2.3-to-3.0/
>
>This is subject to change, as we have not actually released this
>version yet.
>
>Aki
Thanks Aki,
I skimmed this document and it looks to me like nothing
> On 20/10/2022 22:00 EEST Steve Litt wrote:
>
>
> Aki Tuomi said on Thu, 20 Oct 2022 21:41:53 +0300 (EEST)
>
> >Most small/medium servers do not need director. You can use replicator
> >get a pri/bu pair.
>
> I've never needed to use replicator. I don't even know what a pri/bu
> pair is.
Aki Tuomi said on Thu, 20 Oct 2022 21:41:53 +0300 (EEST)
>Most small/medium servers do not need director. You can use replicator
>get a pri/bu pair.
I've never needed to use replicator. I don't even know what a pri/bu
pair is. I just have fetchmail feed to procmail which delivers messages
into
> Most small/medium servers do not need director. You can use replicator
> get a pri/bu pair.
>
What is small?
Most small/medium servers do not need director. You can use replicator get a
pri/bu pair.
Only the director part is being removed, rest of Dovecot remains. For the next
major release we are also removing certain deprecated parts that have a
replacement in elsewhere of the code.
The mail
I'm top posting because I can't make heads or tails of this thread.
Does this thread mean that Dovecot will no longer be Free Software?
It appears that only Dovecot Director will be taken proprietary, but if
all of Dovecot is in jeopardy, I need to switch to another local IMAP
server program.
> On 20/10/2022 12:24 EEST Steff Majeur wrote:
>
>
> I recently stumbled upon the following commit on the Dovecot core Github
> repository:
> https://github.com/dovecot/core/commit/4a187116dc2311804be22724007d357323005358
>
> Apparently, Dovecot Director is going to be removed in the next
I recently stumbled upon the following commit on the Dovecot core Github
repository:
https://github.com/dovecot/core/commit/4a187116dc2311804be22724007d357323005358
Apparently, Dovecot Director is going to be removed in the next major version
of Dovecot and the commercial Dovecot cluster
59 matches
Mail list logo
