Re: [Dovecot] Outlook 2010 very slow when using IMAP - are there any tweaks?
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote: > On 3.7.2012, at 9.38, Kaya Saman wrote: > >> So if I look at a different authentication mechanism say LDAP would it >> improve performance? > > I doubt authentication has anything to do with why Outlook downloads mails > slowly. > > But you could configure Outlook to use plaintext authentication instead of > NTLM authentication to see if it makes a difference. No need to change > anything on Dovecot side then. > I've just had a look and I don't think Outlook 2010 has that option ?? It might be that M$ decided to use auto authentication/negotiation as to take away the hastle from potentially confused end users? This is frustrating, using Thunderbird this setup works really well however, my organization **requires** Outlook and the only contectivity is to a remotely managed Exchange server (being connected to over VPN to another country) and no **standard** protocols used, just **Exchange** meaning I can't even connect to the server using a 'normal' client. :-S Am totally lost now! - BUMP! Regards, Kaya
Re: [Dovecot] Outlook 2010 very slow when using IMAP - are there any tweaks?
On 3.7.2012, at 9.38, Kaya Saman wrote: > So if I look at a different authentication mechanism say LDAP would it > improve performance? I doubt authentication has anything to do with why Outlook downloads mails slowly. But you could configure Outlook to use plaintext authentication instead of NTLM authentication to see if it makes a difference. No need to change anything on Dovecot side then.
Re: [Dovecot] Outlook 2010 very slow when using IMAP - are there any tweaks?
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote: > On 2.7.2012, at 19.12, Kaya Saman wrote: > >> what's really weird is that if I keep increasing the Cache TTL and >> Cache size, the speed of transfer starts dropping. > > I think it may just be a coincidence that changing cache values appears to > help, and the real reason maybe being just that Dovecot got restarted. > Because if Outlook is using NTLM + winbind for authentication, the auth cache > isn't used at all. > Thanks Giles and Timo :-) So if I look at a different authentication mechanism say LDAP would it improve performance? There is currently a local AD in the network which I think piggy-backs off the parent companies AD for mail. If this is guarunteed to improve performance I don't mind taking the time to learn LDAP integration; though I must say it took me quite a while, several months in fact to learn NTLM and get it working - with very little or no help from anyone on any associated list :-( . Regards, Kaya
Re: [Dovecot] Dovecot shared library to replace libc-client
On 3.7.2012, at 9.18, Asheesh Laroia wrote: >> I'm still not ready to give ABI or even API guarantees to libdovecot.. There >> are still several important large changes to do and I don't really want to >> keep a ton of ugly backwards compatibility stuff just for external users of >> the library. Also another potential problem is that libdovecot.so doesn't >> use a global namespace prefix for all of its functions, so linking it with >> php could cause symbol name conflicts (especially md5_*, sha1_* and such >> could cause trouble, like they already have caused with libmysql). > > Yeah, I totally understand your desire to not make backwards compatiblity a > goal of the project. > > Interesting point about the global namespace prefix. Is this something you'd > be willing to reconsider, and start using a global namespace prefix? Dovecot in any case will have many different prefixes (I don't want to change ALL functions to begin with the same one), but there is one that is somewhat commonly used already: "i_" which originally indicated "irssi library" :) dovecot-2.1/src/lib% grep '\bi_' *.h|wc -l 175 Much of the rest of the functions in lib/ could be prefixed with "i_" I guess. But there are several annoying problems, such as t_ prefix is also commonly used in many places and I don't want to remove them (but they probably won't be a real problem either). Then there's i_stream_*() for input streams vs. o_stream_*() for output streams. But for some of the clearly unproblematic ones the i_ prefix could be added, like for md5/sha/etc small and potentially conflicting functions. Also I think GNU ld supports some way of hiding all but the explicitly wanted symbols from libraries, which would allow libdovecot to use all of its functions internally without the danger of them conflicting with outside users. But I'm not entirely sure how that works, maybe it needs to be done at linking stage which won't be good for Dovecot binaries that link with libdovecot. >> Once Dovecot becomes more "finished" (a few years?) I could consider API/ABI >> guarantees.. Of course nothing prevents anyone else from distributing a >> (patched) libdovecot already that actually does give some ABI guarantees. I >> just don't want to spend time on it. And v2.1 -> v2.2 -> v2.3 etc. >> transitions are going to be large changes. > > Yeah -- what I think is the most sensible, at the moment, is to distribute a > small shim that has reasonably-tight dependencies to dovecot itself, and so > when you upgrade dovecot, you probably have to upgrade the shim. So it > proxies away the instability in dovecot, and provides a small, stable API/ABI. > > That's something that it seems you might not be interested in, but I wonder > if I can convince you otherwise. > > If not, I might try convincing others to write it, but I'm hoping you might > since you are so great! (-: The best I can do is that at some point in future (might still be 1-2 years) I want to provide scripting language bindings for Dovecot APIs, maybe even allow creating plugins with non-C languages. Those APIs would then pretty much have to be frozen so that they don't break. Before that I need to do a few more larger API breakages to support some missing things. >> I wonder if it would make any sense to for Alpine not use libdovecot API >> directly but rather talk IMAP protocol to Dovecot code (maybe running in a >> separate process)? The Dovecot configuration could be passed pretty easily >> from Alpine code without requiring any extra config files. > > That's my fallback plan at the moment, yeah. It seems like more work, though, > but it has some serious tidiness possibly going for it. You could have Alpine keep the libc-client code and simply use it to connect to local Dovecot via IMAP protocol. All of the mailbox access would then go via Dovecot. I don't think it would be much work, mainly you'd need to create "libc-client mail storage configuration" -> "Dovecot settings in key=value format", fork a new process, put the settings to environment, exec imap and that's about it.
Re: [Dovecot] Dovecot shared library to replace libc-client
On Tue, 3 Jul 2012, Timo Sirainen wrote: On 3.7.2012, at 8.53, Asheesh Laroia wrote: I see there is a dovecot shared library. I haven't looked into the details, but here are things I'm interested in: 1. Replacing libc-client's use as a client library .. I envision creating libdovecot-c-client-alike that is a set of headers and a library that is API-compatible with (at least a subset of) c-client. You can call that a "compatibility shim." Then e.g. php5-imap could be given the path to those headers and the corresponding libdovecot-c-client-alike library, and when it thinks it is linking to c-client, it could instead link to the libdovecot-c-client-alike. Yeah, that's a possibility. Although Dovecot's libraries are still more about the server side stuff than client side stuff, so it's possible that there are many important missing things. Also libc-client is commonly used to do IMAP access and Dovecot's imapc backend is still lacking quite a lot of that functionality. Timo, I appreciate the super speedy response! This might be convenient if you want to limit how much of a public API is presented by the current "dovecot.so" that gets installed in e.g. /usr/lib/dovecot/. The compatiblity shim could have a small API, and if you don't want provide ABI guarantees within dovecot.so, the shim could dlopen() dovecot.so rather than link to it. I'm still not ready to give ABI or even API guarantees to libdovecot.. There are still several important large changes to do and I don't really want to keep a ton of ugly backwards compatibility stuff just for external users of the library. Also another potential problem is that libdovecot.so doesn't use a global namespace prefix for all of its functions, so linking it with php could cause symbol name conflicts (especially md5_*, sha1_* and such could cause trouble, like they already have caused with libmysql). Yeah, I totally understand your desire to not make backwards compatiblity a goal of the project. Interesting point about the global namespace prefix. Is this something you'd be willing to reconsider, and start using a global namespace prefix? Once Dovecot becomes more "finished" (a few years?) I could consider API/ABI guarantees.. Of course nothing prevents anyone else from distributing a (patched) libdovecot already that actually does give some ABI guarantees. I just don't want to spend time on it. And v2.1 -> v2.2 -> v2.3 etc. transitions are going to be large changes. Yeah -- what I think is the most sensible, at the moment, is to distribute a small shim that has reasonably-tight dependencies to dovecot itself, and so when you upgrade dovecot, you probably have to upgrade the shim. So it proxies away the instability in dovecot, and provides a small, stable API/ABI. That's something that it seems you might not be interested in, but I wonder if I can convince you otherwise. If not, I might try convincing others to write it, but I'm hoping you might since you are so great! (-: 2. Use of Dovecot shared library within alpine, embedding the imapd Right now, the mail client "alpine" embeds a copy of the UW IMAP source. It uses this when accessing local mail spools, for example. If Dovecot's IMAPd were available as a shared library, perhaps with a c-client-like API, (although not necessarily -- it would be feasible to upgrade alpine to a different API), then alpine could use Dovecot's mail drivers directly. I wonder if it would make any sense to for Alpine not use libdovecot API directly but rather talk IMAP protocol to Dovecot code (maybe running in a separate process)? The Dovecot configuration could be passed pretty easily from Alpine code without requiring any extra config files. That's my fallback plan at the moment, yeah. It seems like more work, though, but it has some serious tidiness possibly going for it. -- Asheesh.
Re: [Dovecot] Authentication failed (migrate from 2.0.13 to 2.0.17)
With auth_debug_passwords=yes you'll get a lot more in the log. If you don't see, you're not looking into the correct file. Make sure you look into the debug log as shown by "doveadm log find". On 3.7.2012, at 8.34, Dovecot user wrote: > > > i just get this error : > dovecot: imap-login: Aborted login (auth > failed, 1 attempts): method=DIGEST-MD5, rip=127.0.0.1, lip=127.0.0.1, > secured > root@mx:/var/log # date > > IMAP Error: Login failed for > test...@mydomain.net from 192.168.0.92. Authentication failed. in > /var/www/webmail/roundcubemail-0.7.2/program/include/rcube_imap.php on > line 205 (POST /webmail/?_task=login&_action=login) > > On 03.07.2012 > 09:20, Timo Sirainen wrote: > >> On 3.7.2012, at 8.00, Dovecot user > wrote: >> >>> I tried to do the same 'dovecot -n' (dovecot 2.0.13, same > config file) : >> >> Oh, are you saying that the difference isn't just > the Dovecot version, but that they are completely different systems with > (somewhat) different settings also? That's much more likely the problem > than the version number. >> >>> Is it normal that there are no lines : > "default_internal_user = _dovecot" & "default_login_user = _dovenull" >> > >> Normal enough. It's then using the Dovecot's defaults which are > "dovecot" and "dovenull". >
Re: [Dovecot] Dovecot shared library to replace libc-client
On 3.7.2012, at 8.53, Asheesh Laroia wrote: > I see there is a dovecot shared library. I haven't looked into the > details, but here are things I'm interested in: > > 1. Replacing libc-client's use as a client library .. > I envision creating libdovecot-c-client-alike that is a set of headers > and a library that is API-compatible with (at least a subset of) > c-client. You can call that a "compatibility shim." Then e.g. php5-imap > could be given the path to those headers and the corresponding > libdovecot-c-client-alike library, and when it thinks it is linking to > c-client, it could instead link to the libdovecot-c-client-alike. Yeah, that's a possibility. Although Dovecot's libraries are still more about the server side stuff than client side stuff, so it's possible that there are many important missing things. Also libc-client is commonly used to do IMAP access and Dovecot's imapc backend is still lacking quite a lot of that functionality. > This might be convenient if you want to limit how much of a public API > is presented by the current "dovecot.so" that gets installed in e.g. > /usr/lib/dovecot/. The compatiblity shim could have a small API, and if > you don't want provide ABI guarantees within dovecot.so, the shim could > dlopen() dovecot.so rather than link to it. I'm still not ready to give ABI or even API guarantees to libdovecot.. There are still several important large changes to do and I don't really want to keep a ton of ugly backwards compatibility stuff just for external users of the library. Also another potential problem is that libdovecot.so doesn't use a global namespace prefix for all of its functions, so linking it with php could cause symbol name conflicts (especially md5_*, sha1_* and such could cause trouble, like they already have caused with libmysql). Once Dovecot becomes more "finished" (a few years?) I could consider API/ABI guarantees.. Of course nothing prevents anyone else from distributing a (patched) libdovecot already that actually does give some ABI guarantees. I just don't want to spend time on it. And v2.1 -> v2.2 -> v2.3 etc. transitions are going to be large changes. > 2. Use of Dovecot shared library within alpine, embedding the imapd > > Right now, the mail client "alpine" embeds a copy of the UW IMAP > source. It uses this when accessing local mail spools, for example. > > If Dovecot's IMAPd were available as a shared library, perhaps with a > c-client-like API, (although not necessarily -- it would be feasible to > upgrade alpine to a different API), then alpine could use Dovecot's > mail drivers directly. I wonder if it would make any sense to for Alpine not use libdovecot API directly but rather talk IMAP protocol to Dovecot code (maybe running in a separate process)? The Dovecot configuration could be passed pretty easily from Alpine code without requiring any extra config files.
Re: [Dovecot] Outlook 2010 very slow when using IMAP - are there any tweaks?
Many companies require Outlook, and the fact is, as an EXCHANGE client, Outlook works extremely well. I agree that as a standalone Show me this. I actually migrated many places OUT of this crap because it doesn't work, with great success.
Re: [Dovecot] Outlook 2010 very slow when using IMAP - are there any tweaks?
finally some clear answer :) Trying dovecot to improve outlook is like using gold to improve shit. No matter how much gold is used, it will still stink. I cannot understand that people. On Tue, 3 Jul 2012, Timo Sirainen wrote: On 2.7.2012, at 19.12, Kaya Saman wrote: what's really weird is that if I keep increasing the Cache TTL and Cache size, the speed of transfer starts dropping. I think it may just be a coincidence that changing cache values appears to help, and the real reason maybe being just that Dovecot got restarted. Because if Outlook is using NTLM + winbind for authentication, the auth cache isn't used at all.
Re: [Dovecot] Outlook 2010 very slow when using IMAP - are there any tweaks?
Outlook is the client of Exchange , it can do smtp,imap,pop3 too its sold as a solution, with os , server, auth system ,client , support people etc and that solution - as a common example - doesn't work. There is no reason for M$ to make Qutlook fit in a perfect imap client cause this would goal in less reason for exchange as well as it's own product. But it is by design, as more money can ge acquired by constantly servicing non working product. Nevertheless if you have good admins and money to buy licences and good support, outlook and exchange are good company solutions for intranet mail and groupware ( like calendering etc ) Show me working case. i would like to see it :) Still - it have nothing to Dovecot and Dovecot, no matter how great would be, will not improve it. "Tweaks" can overcome some bugs or deficiences but not whole product.
[Dovecot] Dovecot shared library to replace libc-client
Hi all Dovecotters, Lots of programs (e.g, PHP) link to a library called c-client, which is a derivative of the original IMAP implementation, UW IMAP. (For those new to UW IMAP, read here: http://www.washington.edu/imap/ ) UW IMAP is not in as much of active development as it used to be, so I am curious: I see there is a dovecot shared library. I haven't looked into the details, but here are things I'm interested in: 1. Replacing libc-client's use as a client library In Debian, for example, you can search for packages that depend on this library as a client. It looks like this: $ ~ apt-cache rdepends libc-client2007e libc-client2007e Reverse Depends: uw-mailutils uw-imapd libc-client2007e-dev ipopd prayer php5-imap mailsync libmail-cclient-perl asterisk aolserver4-nsimap uw-mailutils libc-client2007e-dev prayer php5-imap mailsync libmail-cclient-perl asterisk-voicemail-imapstorage Let's say, hypothetically, we wanted to switch php5-imap to using Dovecot where it currently uses libc-client. I envision creating libdovecot-c-client-alike that is a set of headers and a library that is API-compatible with (at least a subset of) c-client. You can call that a "compatibility shim." Then e.g. php5-imap could be given the path to those headers and the corresponding libdovecot-c-client-alike library, and when it thinks it is linking to c-client, it could instead link to the libdovecot-c-client-alike. This might be convenient if you want to limit how much of a public API is presented by the current "dovecot.so" that gets installed in e.g. /usr/lib/dovecot/. The compatiblity shim could have a small API, and if you don't want provide ABI guarantees within dovecot.so, the shim could dlopen() dovecot.so rather than link to it. 2. Use of Dovecot shared library within alpine, embedding the imapd Right now, the mail client "alpine" embeds a copy of the UW IMAP source. It uses this when accessing local mail spools, for example. If Dovecot's IMAPd were available as a shared library, perhaps with a c-client-like API, (although not necessarily -- it would be feasible to upgrade alpine to a different API), then alpine could use Dovecot's mail drivers directly. So, those two are the dream. Timo and others, what are your thoughts? Thanks for reading this far! -- Asheesh. P.S. The radical request #2 would be an excellent, decisive way to end a sad thread in the Debian bug tracker about Alpine + Maildir: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=405762 .
Re: [Dovecot] Authentication failed (migrate from 2.0.13 to 2.0.17)
i just get this error : dovecot: imap-login: Aborted login (auth failed, 1 attempts): method=DIGEST-MD5, rip=127.0.0.1, lip=127.0.0.1, secured root@mx:/var/log # date IMAP Error: Login failed for test...@mydomain.net from 192.168.0.92. Authentication failed. in /var/www/webmail/roundcubemail-0.7.2/program/include/rcube_imap.php on line 205 (POST /webmail/?_task=login&_action=login) On 03.07.2012 09:20, Timo Sirainen wrote: > On 3.7.2012, at 8.00, Dovecot user wrote: > >> I tried to do the same 'dovecot -n' (dovecot 2.0.13, same config file) : > > Oh, are you saying that the difference isn't just the Dovecot version, but that they are completely different systems with (somewhat) different settings also? That's much more likely the problem than the version number. > >> Is it normal that there are no lines : "default_internal_user = _dovecot" & "default_login_user = _dovenull" > > Normal enough. It's then using the Dovecot's defaults which are "dovecot" and "dovenull".
Re: [Dovecot] Authentication failed (migrate from 2.0.13 to 2.0.17)
On 3.7.2012, at 8.00, Dovecot user wrote: > I tried to do the same 'dovecot -n' (dovecot 2.0.13, same config > file) : Oh, are you saying that the difference isn't just the Dovecot version, but that they are completely different systems with (somewhat) different settings also? That's much more likely the problem than the version number. > Is it normal that there are no lines : > "default_internal_user = _dovecot" & "default_login_user = _dovenull" Normal enough. It's then using the Dovecot's defaults which are "dovecot" and "dovenull". > I will try "auth_debug_passwords=yes", keep you informed. Look at this output in your 2.0.13 setup and in 2.0.17 setup and see what the differences are.
Re: [Dovecot] Authentication failed (migrate from 2.0.13 to 2.0.17)
I tried to do the same 'dovecot -n' (dovecot 2.0.13, same config file) : # 2.0.13: /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf # OS: OpenBSD 5.0 i386 ffs auth_mechanisms = plain login digest-md5 cram-md5 apop base_dir = /var/dovecot/ default_internal_user = _dovecot default_login_user = _dovenull first_valid_uid = 1000 mail_location = maildir:/var/mailserv/mail/%d/%n With dovecot 2.0.17 : # 2.0.17 (684381041dc4+): /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf # OS: OpenBSD 5.1 i386 ffs auth_mechanisms = plain login digest-md5 cram-md5 apop base_dir = /var/dovecot/ first_valid_uid = 1000 mail_location = maildir:/var/mailserv/mail/%d/%n Is it normal that there are no lines : "default_internal_user = _dovecot" & "default_login_user = _dovenull" ?? I will try "auth_debug_passwords=yes", keep you informed. Again, thank you very much. -- Wesley On 03.07.2012 08:54, Timo Sirainen wrote: > On 3.7.2012, at 7.37, Dovecot user wrote: > >> There's no way to troubleshoot this error ? > > Set auth_debug_passwords=yes and show all of the log entries from a failed login. Preferably use a test password so it won't be exposed. :) > >> I use the same config file for dovecot 2.0.13, all works. Perhaps in 2.0.17, something is missing in my config file, or there's new keyword... ?? > > No, the configuration is identical between those version. The CRAM-MD5 code is also identical between those versions. I guess there could be some other seemingly unrelated change that might have broken it for some reason.
Re: [Dovecot] Authentication failed (migrate from 2.0.13 to 2.0.17)
On 3.7.2012, at 7.37, Dovecot user wrote: > There's no way to troubleshoot this error ? Set auth_debug_passwords=yes and show all of the log entries from a failed login. Preferably use a test password so it won't be exposed. :) > I use the same config > file for dovecot 2.0.13, all works. > Perhaps in 2.0.17, something is > missing in my config file, or there's new keyword... ?? No, the configuration is identical between those version. The CRAM-MD5 code is also identical between those versions. I guess there could be some other seemingly unrelated change that might have broken it for some reason.
Re: [Dovecot] Authentication failed (migrate from 2.0.13 to 2.0.17)
There's no way to troubleshoot this error ?
I use the same config
file for dovecot 2.0.13, all works.
Perhaps in 2.0.17, something is
missing in my config file, or there's new keyword... ??
'dovecot -n'
give me :
auth_mechanisms = plain login digest-md5 cram-md5
apop
base_dir = /var/dovecot/
first_valid_uid = 1000
mail_location =
maildir:/var/mailserv/mail/%d/%n
managesieve_notify_capability =
mailto
managesieve_sieve_capability = fileinto reject envelope
encoded-character vacation subaddress comparator-i;ascii-numeric
relational regex imap4flags copy include variables body enotify
environment mailbox date ihave
mmap_disable = yes
passdb {
args =
/etc/dovecot-sql.conf
driver = sql
}
plugin {
antispam_mail_notspam =
--ham
antispam_mail_sendmail = /usr/local/bin/sa-learn
antispam_mail_sendmail_args = --username=%u
antispam_mail_spam =
--spam
antispam_mail_tmpdir = /tmp
antispam_signature = X-Spam-Flag
antispam_signature_missing = move
antispam_spam =
SPAM;Spam;spam;Junk;junk
antispam_trash = trash;Trash;Deleted Items;
Deleted Messages
autocreate = Trash
autocreate2 = Spam
autocreate3 =
Sent
autocreate4 = Drafts
autosubscribe = Trash
autosubscribe2 =
Spam
autosubscribe3 = Sent
autosubscribe4 = Drafts
quota = maildir
quota_rule = *:storage=5G
quota_rule2 = Trash:storage=+100M
quota_warning = storage=95%% /usr/local/bin/quota-warning.sh 95
quota_warning2 = storage=80%% /usr/local/bin/quota-warning.sh 80
sieve
= ~/.dovecot.sieve
sieve_dir = ~/sieve
}
protocols = imap sieve
pop3
service auth {
unix_listener /var/run/dovecot-auth-master {
group
= _dovecot
mode = 0666
user = _dovecot
}
unix_listener
/var/spool/postfix/private/auth {
group = _postfix
mode = 0660
user =
_postfix
}
}
service imap-login {
service_count = 0
vsz_limit = 64
M
}
service managesieve-login {
inet_listener sieve {
port = 4190
}
inet_listener sieve_deprecated {
port = 2000
}
}
service pop3-login {
service_count = 0
vsz_limit = 64 M
}
ssl_cert =
On 2.7.2012, at 16.51,
Dovecot user wrote:
>
>> imap-login: Aborted login (auth failed, 1
attempts): user=, method=CRAM-MD5, rip=127.0.0.1, lip=127.0.0.1, TLS Jul
2 15:19:13 mx dovecot: auth-worker: mysql(localhost): Connected to
database mail Jul 2 15:19:15 mx dovecot: imap-login: Aborted login (auth
failed, 1 attempts): user=, method=PLAIN, rip=127.0.0.1, lip=127.0.0.1,
secured Can you help me please ?
>
> Isn't there anything more in the
logs? It should at the very least say "password mismatch".. CRAM-MD5
authentication is a bit annoying to debug though. But I haven't touched
its code for a long time, so it shouldn't have gotten broken.
[Dovecot] v2.1.8 released
http://dovecot.org/releases/2.1/dovecot-2.1.8.tar.gz http://dovecot.org/releases/2.1/dovecot-2.1.8.tar.gz.sig Most importantly fixes a pretty bad behavior of sending mailbox names as UTF-8 instead of mUTF-7 as required by IMAP RFC. I'm surprised nobody hadn't noticed this in v2.1.x tree before yesterday. I guess some clients might have translated the name to UTF-8 anyway and not noticed it, while others would have silently ignored the problem of not seeing STATUS updates. + pop3c: Added pop3c_master_user setting. - imap: Mailbox names were accidentally sent as UTF-8 instead of mUTF-7 in previous v2.1.x releases for STATUS, MYRIGHTS and GETQUOTAROOT commands. - lmtp proxy: Don't timeout connections too early when mail has a lot of RCPT TOs. - director: Don't crash if the director is working alone. - shared mailboxes: Avoid doing "@domain" userdb lookups. - doveadm: Fixed crash with proxying some commands. - fts-squat: Fixed handling multiple SEARCH parameters. - imapc: Fixed a crash when message had more than 8 keywords. - imapc: Don't crash on APPEND/COPY if server doesn't support UIDPLUS.
Re: [Dovecot] Additional passdb result status
On 24.6.2012, at 23.37, Jürgen Pabel wrote:
> I am implementing a plugin (for the pop3/imap process) that requires
> some data to provided from the authentication phase (a derivative of the
> password). For that, I have now implemented a passdb plugin that
> generates this data and I would like to "pass" this data down to the
> mail process (pop3/imap) via extra_fields in the reply of the
> authentication. The general idea is that my custom passdb plugin
> calculates the data, sets the extra_field and returns some error
> (authentication was not successful) so that the "real" passdb backend
> can be invoked to "really" validate the authentication data.
This is a bit related to another feature people have requested: Ability to
merge data from multiple userdbs into a single reply. Perhaps the same could be
done for passdbs. Also in my TODO is that master=yes passdb currently preserves
userdb extra fields, but not passdb extra fields and that behavior probably
isn't optimal.
There is already passdb { pass=yes } setting for masterdbs. I guess the same
could be used for non-masterdbs and also added to userdbs.
> However, in auth_request_handle_passdb_callback() the extra_fields are
> reseted unless the return code is PASSDB_RESULT_USER_DISABLED. But if
> that return code is used then any following passdb's aren't invoked any
> more - which makes sense with respect to user authenticiation. I would
> therefore like to propose that some IGNORE/CONTINUE-status to be
> introduced in auth/passdb.h, that would be handled in that extra_fields
> and possible other values are not reseted in order to allow such
> propagation of data from authentication process down to the mail process
> (which could be extracted from the reply string by parsing it).
Yes, extra_fields really need to get reset between passdb calls. Same for
userdb_reply.
> As a further implementation alternative (to the parsing of the reply
> string), I also propose that some new "environment" item be introduced
> (in auth_request) in order to allow such data passing in a generic
> manner.
Maybe a new permanent_extra_fields, which gets added as default to new
passdb/userdb lookups. If the lookup has pass=yes, the result gets added to
permanent_extra_fields.
Although the code is beginning to have too many extra_fields variables. Maybe
it would be possible to merge extra_fields, extra_cache_fields and userdb_reply
into one array of structs:
struct auth_field {
const char *key, *value;
bool cache_only;
bool userdb;
bool permanent;
};
> I hope you consider my proposal to be reasonable. If desired, I could
> implement this myself and provide a patch for merging (based on 2.0.x).
> If my proposal is generally unfavored, it would be great if any
> alternative approaches for my situation were suggested. Thanks.
I could add such a patch to v2.2.
Re: [Dovecot] userdb errors after upgrading to 2.1
On 26.6.2012, at 18.04, André Rodier wrote: > I am using LDAP lookups, and virtual users with the same UID/GID. > > Everything was working fine before, but now, I have this error when I > try to send an email to a local account: > > > Jun 26 15:46:52 lapetus dovecot: lmtp(24518): Error: user > user.t...@indienet.com: Auth USER lookup failed > Jun 26 15:46:52 lapetus dovecot: auth: Error: > userdb(user.t...@indienet.com,127.0.0.1): client doesn't have lookup > permissions for this user: userdb reply doesn't contain uid (change > userdb socket > > > However, even if I set the permissions to 0666, I still have the same error. > > Can you point me in the right direction to fix this, please? Easiest fix is to set permissions to 0777. A better one would be to set them to 0600 and set the socket's UID to your virtual user's UID.
Re: [Dovecot] Wrong headers in dovecot-crlf
On 26.6.2012, at 21.55, Matthieu RAKOTOJAONA wrote: > I'm using the very good imaptest [0] tool to test my little imap server > implementation. I've tried to use the dovecot-crlf [1] file, but it looks like > there are some major issues : > > $ grep -n "In-Reply-To.*;" tests/data/dovecot-crlf > 479:In-Reply-To: <20020806175441.ga7...@linux.taugt.net>; from > rueck...@informatik.uni-rostock.de on Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 07:54:41PM +0200 Yes, those aren't valid RFC 2822 headers. I'm not entirely sure if they're valid RFC 822 headers. > As you can see, many of the "In-Reply-To" headers are polluted with some junk. > The situation is the same for many "Message-ID" headers. > > I don't know why they are here, but I think it's a mistake. I thought I would > let you know. They're there because those headers were sent originally to this list. I don't have any specific reason to modify the mails, and it might be better not to do it so that real world parsers can also figure out what to do with broken mails.
Re: [Dovecot] dict Panic after upgrade to 2.1.7
On 24.6.2012, at 13.21, ckubu wrote: > dovecot log entries: > Jun 23 23:19:10 mx dovecot: dict: Panic: file driver-pgsql.c: line 84 > (driver_pgsql_set_state): assertion failed: (state == SQL_DB_STATE_BUSY || db- >> cur_result == NULL) This is clearly a bug, but I don't really see why it's happening. It would be helpful if you could get a gdb backtrace: http://dovecot.org/bugreport.html
Re: [Dovecot] Setting up mixed mbox and maildir
On 28.6.2012, at 2.34, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote: > I am continuing to attempt to set up dovecot to keep its mail store in maildir > form while receiving it from an mbox, but without success. Dovecot reports > the > error that it can't create the file ~/mail/.imap/INBOX (and also that it can't > chown it to user mail, not surprising since it doesn't exist). This seems > reasonable, since jonrysh (that is me) is not a member of the group mail. > What > should be done next? Should I join the group mail? It seems that this should > not be necessary in general. The mail store is in ~/maildir, so what is the > function of the mbox ~/mail? > > Dovecot must be misconfigured, but it's not clear to a newbie like myself > what's wrong. Any advice would be appreciated. I have attached an extract > from maillog showing the errors (dovecot.log) dovecot reports (dovecot.log), > and the output of dovecot -n (dovecot-n). The log shows the URL for the explanation and the solution: http://wiki2.dovecot.org/Errors/ChgrpNoPerm
Re: [Dovecot] indexer-worker
On 28.6.2012, at 13.38, Wojciech Puchar wrote: >>> 29413 root 1 760 22820K 9204K kqread 1 0:17 5.86% >>> indexer-worker >> >> It runs as root while not really doing anything, but when it starts >> accessing users' files it temporarily drops privileges. This is >> necessary if users have multiple different UIDs. > > to showed it with root privilege and 60% CPU load+disk I/O when doing text > search over not yet indexed folder. Maybe your ps/kernel shows the process's "real uid" instead of the "effective uid". >> If you have only one UID e.g. vmail, you could set: >> > i'm not sure what you exactly mean. > > I have simplest possible config - mail accounts are unix accounts and mail is > at Maildir Yes, so the problem is that if the same indexer-worker process wants to index mails to two different users, it can't drop root privileges completely because otherwise it couldn't switch between the users' UIDs. Anyway, it would be possible to drop the root privileges completely by servicing only a single indexing request and then stopping the process. This would be worse for performance of course, but it should still be an option. I'll probably add to v2.2.
Re: [Dovecot] doveadm purge -A via doveadm-proxy director fails after some users
On 29.6.2012, at 19.21, Daniel Parthey wrote: > Jun 29 15:40:31 10.129.3.249 dovecot: doveadm(use...@domain1.example.org): > Error: user use...@domain1.example.org: Error reading configuration: > net_connect_unix(/var/run/dovecot/config) failed: Permission denied I've noticed a similar problem happening somewhat randomly, but I still haven't looked into why exactly it happens. Anyway the attached patch should fix this specific error, but I'm not sure if there isn't another one. Try and let me know? :) diff Description: Binary data
Re: [Dovecot] Proxy config help please
On 30.6.2012, at 0.41, Zac Israel wrote:
> # 2.0.19: /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf
..
> passdb {
> args = proxy=proxy_always nopassword=y host=172.16.0.13 port=143
> proxy_timeout=5 starttls=y ssl=any-cert
v2.0 has some problems with this. You should use v2.1 and use server name as
the "host" value instead of IP. But anyway, the main problem is that you
haven't specified ssl_ca setting that contains the accepted CA certificate.
Re: [Dovecot] Authentication failed (migrate from 2.0.13 to 2.0.17)
On 2.7.2012, at 16.51, Dovecot user wrote: > imap-login: Aborted login (auth failed, 1 attempts): user=, > method=CRAM-MD5, rip=127.0.0.1, lip=127.0.0.1, TLS > Jul 2 15:19:13 mx > dovecot: auth-worker: mysql(localhost): Connected to database mail > Jul 2 > 15:19:15 mx dovecot: imap-login: Aborted login (auth failed, 1 > attempts): user=, method=PLAIN, rip=127.0.0.1, lip=127.0.0.1, secured > > > Can you help me please ? Isn't there anything more in the logs? It should at the very least say "password mismatch".. CRAM-MD5 authentication is a bit annoying to debug though. But I haven't touched its code for a long time, so it shouldn't have gotten broken.
Re: [Dovecot] Outlook 2010 very slow when using IMAP - are there any tweaks?
On 2.7.2012, at 19.12, Kaya Saman wrote: > what's really weird is that if I keep increasing the Cache TTL and > Cache size, the speed of transfer starts dropping. I think it may just be a coincidence that changing cache values appears to help, and the real reason maybe being just that Dovecot got restarted. Because if Outlook is using NTLM + winbind for authentication, the auth cache isn't used at all.
Re: [Dovecot] Outlook 2010 very slow when using IMAP - are there any tweaks?
On 02/07/2012 17:12, Kaya Saman wrote: On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Giles Coochey wrote: On 02/07/2012 16:22, Giles Coochey wrote: The size is in KB. I'm afraid cache-timeout and the inner workings would be something only Timo or the Source Code know :-) http://wiki2.dovecot.org/Authentication/Caching the TTL setting is in seconds - perhaps what you are looking for? -- Regards, Giles Coochey, CCNA, CCNAS NetSecSpec Ltd +44 (0) 7983 877438 http://www.netsecspec.co.uk giles.cooc...@netsecspec.co.uk -- Regards, Giles Coochey, CCNA, CCNAS NetSecSpec Ltd +44 (0) 7983 877438 http://www.coochey.net http://www.netsecspec.co.uk gi...@coochey.net Giles, what's really weird is that if I keep increasing the Cache TTL and Cache size, the speed of transfer starts dropping. Perhaps I haven't hit the sweet spot yet however, running: auth_cache_size = 16 B auth_cache_ttl = 8 hours I am actually knocking off 4 seconds from half size values. To be honest I just whish I could understand what is going on in order to get the transfer sub-3 minutes! Regards, Kaya I would have thought that just enabling a simple cache would have given you a little performance increase, but unless you have a lot of users tweaking the values ought not to give you much more of a performance gain. In any case, the bottleneck appears to be your authentication mechanism, for which you're using a samba tool (presumably for AD integration). The key to this at the end would be to actually get a performance gain from the authentication itself, but I guess that would be something for the Samba list. -- Regards, Giles Coochey, CCNA, CCNAS NetSecSpec Ltd +44 (0) 7983 877438 http://www.coochey.net http://www.netsecspec.co.uk gi...@coochey.net smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [Dovecot] Outlook 2010 very slow when using IMAP - are there any tweaks?
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 11:54:07 -0400 Charles Marcus articulated: > On 2012-07-02 11:39 AM, Wojciech Puchar > wrote: > >> though this is a bit of a side question, has anybody had an issue > >> while running Outlook 2010 with Dovecot? > > > No because i don't use that shit and enforce anyone not to do this. > > > > Outlook is terrible and even worse with imap. It is not Dovecot > > fault and have nothing to Dovecot. > > > > Just replace Outlook with real MUA that actually works. > > Please don't be an ass - if you can't help with the actual problem, > just keep comments like this to yourself. > > Many companies require Outlook, and the fact is, as an EXCHANGE > client, Outlook works extremely well. I agree that as a standalone > IMAP client it isn't the best, but 2010 is much better than 2003 and > earlier versions... Wojciech has been Spamming up several forums lately. I finally set up a kill filter to eliminate him on those forums. I see that I am going to have to make one for the Dovecot mailing list also. Perhaps I should simple write a rule to have Postfix reject his mail. He NEVER has anything constructive to say and has been labeled a TROLL numerous times. His language is extremely vulgar and hateful. He likes to imply that he is knowledgeable yet fails to display any of that alleged knowledge. His abilities do not seem to fit within the pandect of modern system administration. Following his postings on other forums has led me to discover that he is simply a Microsoft antagonist with none of the required prerequisites to be one. I am sure his unnamed (mythical) company is proud of him. -- Jerry ♔ Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __
Re: [Dovecot] Dovecot 2.1 stable packages for Debian?
11.06.2012 13:23, Krzysztof Trybowski: > it is strange, but Dovecot 2.x still didn't make it into Debian (not > even backports). It seems that 2.1.7 has landed in squeeze-backports. -- Regards mks
Re: [Dovecot] + sub addressing setup
On 07/02/2012 08:00 PM Pascal Volk wrote: > See this this thread: http://dovecot.org/list/dovecot/2012-June/066374.html > Oh, forget that tread. :) I hope you are using Dovecot's lmtp, then set lmtp_save_to_detail_mailbox = yes, in your 20-lmtp.conf. Otherwise pass use the -m option with dovecot-lda (http://wiki2.dovecot.org/Tools/DovecotLDA) Regards, Pascal -- The trapper recommends today: deadbeef.1218...@localdomain.org
Re: [Dovecot] + sub addressing setup
See this this thread: http://dovecot.org/list/dovecot/2012-June/066374.html Regards, Pascal -- The trapper recommends today: c01dcafe.1218...@localdomain.org
Re: [Dovecot] Outlook 2010 very slow when using IMAP - are there any tweaks?
Am 02.07.2012 19:10, schrieb Wojciech Puchar: >> Equivalents of all these can be presented the other way around against >> badly configured free software solutions. > > Fortunately not microsoft sets open standard and have to conform to them > or there will be microsoft only mail. And more fortunately not these > admins. > > OK response from exchange server getting properly my e-mail is enough > proof that email was delivered to it. > No attempts (including tcpdump trace) of sending e-mail from exchange > serverr to me is too a proof of email not being delivered by it. > > Yet fortunately it is really easy to fight it - EXPLAIN people. > > Most people just don't know what they are doing wrong and not willingly > want to make things more complicated. Simply explaining them is from my > experience enough in 99% of cases. YES really it works but most people > here never tried it! > > As for latter - maybe it is possible to make exchange actually work, but > statistics shows that it is not possible, or incredibly hard or people > that are exchange administrators have no knowledge. > > For any of my clients asking if exchange or outlook would be good > solution i just recommend visiting any company that actually use it and > ask average employee (not boss). This always work. > > The other false statement is that such solution are designed for large > scale businesses. The larger case the less chance it may work at all. > > Seems i am the only one here that do not fear the truth. I don't risk > being fired :) as i work for those that (most often) already got at > least one of that "enterprise" solutions and wanted something that > actually work. > > And this is what i recommend to all of you. > > > I recommend ending this topic altogether, as it is not dovecot related > at all - unless anyone will find a problem with Dovecot implementation > of IMAP that is clearly not confirming to standards, and (possibly) > affect microsoft outlook. > > Highly unlikely but possible. > > Dovecot is high performance IMAP server, but will not fix bad client > software. Hi , as i said million times before dont compare the incomparable Outlook is the client of Exchange , it can do smtp,imap,pop3 too its sold as a solution, with os , server, auth system ,client , support people etc There is no reason for M$ to make Qutlook fit in a perfect imap client cause this would goal in less reason for exchange Nevertheless if you have good admins and money to buy licences and good support, outlook and exchange are good company solutions for intranet mail and groupware ( like calendering etc ) dont flame by m$ is earning money, help making free solutions to get better specially in groupware functions with cross os clients like thunderbird etc dovecot is an imap server it has allready nearly all features comparable to the "exchange imap part", like folder acl etc nothing more is the job of dovecot customers want to do calendering with sharing ,adressbooks with sharings etc all with one client ( for sure mostly they are Outlook junkies ) but this isnt the real problem The real problem is that there arent full working and comparable groupware funktions in one client yet, also on the server side there arent complete free solutions cal/carddav is on the way, as well as syncml and other stuff so the goal is near to have all stuff needed to get comparable and much better meanwhile help dovecot users in fix their tec problems not in flame the shouldnt use a client whatever , most of the times this isnt what server admin can press sombody too Outlook works fine with dovecot if your setup is right dont think thunderbird is a bugless imap client At the end know your enemy, dont talk about outlook if you never worked around it, dont expect things from stuff which it was never made for solve -- Best Regards MfG Robert Schetterer
Re: [Dovecot] Outlook 2010 very slow when using IMAP - are there any tweaks?
On 2 July 2012 13:21, Robert Schetterer wrote: > Am 02.07.2012 17:43, schrieb Kaya Saman: >> Good but not good enough especially when some of our users have round >> 20GB of PST file :-( > > please describe where is the relation between a pst file and imap > pst files are local > > after all having 20 GB PST File is a user Problem ever, tell them to > split up by year etc beyond sizes under 2 GB for each folder its no > problem to work wich many pst files And to add to Robert's excellent comments, perhaps the best policy change (since you're so keen on changing policy) would be educate your users to use email clients for email and not document storage/management systems. It's incredibly hard to get 20GB PSTs if they are stripping attachments. Simon
Re: [Dovecot] Outlook 2010 very slow when using IMAP - are there any tweaks?
Am 02.07.2012 17:43, schrieb Kaya Saman: > Good but not good enough especially when some of our users have round > 20GB of PST file :-( please describe where is the relation between a pst file and imap pst files are local after all having 20 GB PST File is a user Problem ever, tell them to split up by year etc beyond sizes under 2 GB for each folder its no problem to work wich many pst files -- Best Regards MfG Robert Schetterer
Re: [Dovecot] Outlook 2010 very slow when using IMAP - are there any tweaks?
Equivalents of all these can be presented the other way around against badly configured free software solutions. Fortunately not microsoft sets open standard and have to conform to them or there will be microsoft only mail. And more fortunately not these admins. OK response from exchange server getting properly my e-mail is enough proof that email was delivered to it. No attempts (including tcpdump trace) of sending e-mail from exchange serverr to me is too a proof of email not being delivered by it. Yet fortunately it is really easy to fight it - EXPLAIN people. Most people just don't know what they are doing wrong and not willingly want to make things more complicated. Simply explaining them is from my experience enough in 99% of cases. YES really it works but most people here never tried it! As for latter - maybe it is possible to make exchange actually work, but statistics shows that it is not possible, or incredibly hard or people that are exchange administrators have no knowledge. For any of my clients asking if exchange or outlook would be good solution i just recommend visiting any company that actually use it and ask average employee (not boss). This always work. The other false statement is that such solution are designed for large scale businesses. The larger case the less chance it may work at all. Seems i am the only one here that do not fear the truth. I don't risk being fired :) as i work for those that (most often) already got at least one of that "enterprise" solutions and wanted something that actually work. And this is what i recommend to all of you. I recommend ending this topic altogether, as it is not dovecot related at all - unless anyone will find a problem with Dovecot implementation of IMAP that is clearly not confirming to standards, and (possibly) affect microsoft outlook. Highly unlikely but possible. Dovecot is high performance IMAP server, but will not fix bad client software.
Re: [Dovecot] Outlook 2010 very slow when using IMAP - are there any tweaks?
You're not necessarily wrong about Outlook vis-a-vis IMAP. You're very wrong about how much power an email admin has in a real organization. Please take the non-constructive flaming and cursing somewhere else, as others have suggested. Still you can't improve trash program by better IMAP server.
Re: [Dovecot] Outlook 2010 very slow when using IMAP - are there any tweaks?
On 07/02/2012 12:06 PM, Wojciech Puchar wrote: No policy can override truth and facts. I'm not going to comment other than say that this sub-thread probably needs to continue on: alt.flames.anti-microsoft.linux.jihad no. no jihad. No linux actually (i don't use linux). That's fact. If someone want to use outlook then fine, but should not expect anyone else than microsoft to fix it's problems and speed. It is nothing to do with dovecot. All my experience with that shit now is remote. I quite often handle complaints from users that a) "my mail wasn't delivered to somebody." After checking logs i found that recipent's server received mail with success. But mail disappeared then. Sometimes reappeared after a week, sometimes many times, or never ;) The reason was microsoft exchange on recipient side. Sometimes - badly configured antispam. b) reverse - "i don't receive mail from someone". Because someone's MS exchange server didn't even try to send it. c) i'm getting some strange attachment that i cannot open. (winmail.dat) my answer: Ask sender to send attachments according to standards Equivalents of all these can be presented the other way around against badly configured free software solutions. I'd rather say that the real problem is that Microsoft programs require the same level of knowledge and expertise that, ehhhm, computer systems require. They are just not presented that way, and create a culture of "oh sure I can do this, so easy". Exchange *can* be configured to actually deliver mail, it just attracts all the wrong admins. And capable admins will just naturally opt for other solutions.
Re: [Dovecot] Outlook 2010 very slow when using IMAP - are there any tweaks?
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Giles Coochey wrote: > On 02/07/2012 16:22, Giles Coochey wrote: >> >> The size is in KB. I'm afraid cache-timeout and the inner workings >> would be something only Timo or the Source Code know :-) >> > http://wiki2.dovecot.org/Authentication/Caching > > the TTL setting is in seconds - perhaps what you are looking for? > > > > -- > Regards, > > Giles Coochey, CCNA, CCNAS > NetSecSpec Ltd > +44 (0) 7983 877438 > http://www.netsecspec.co.uk > giles.cooc...@netsecspec.co.uk > > > -- > Regards, > > Giles Coochey, CCNA, CCNAS > NetSecSpec Ltd > +44 (0) 7983 877438 > http://www.coochey.net > http://www.netsecspec.co.uk > gi...@coochey.net > > Giles, what's really weird is that if I keep increasing the Cache TTL and Cache size, the speed of transfer starts dropping. Perhaps I haven't hit the sweet spot yet however, running: auth_cache_size = 16 B auth_cache_ttl = 8 hours I am actually knocking off 4 seconds from half size values. To be honest I just whish I could understand what is going on in order to get the transfer sub-3 minutes! Regards, Kaya
Re: [Dovecot] Outlook 2010 very slow when using IMAP - are there any tweaks?
On Jul 2, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Wojciech Puchar wrote: >> Speaking of truth and facts, you've had a lot of advice here lately for >> someone who clearly has never worked on anything but toy projects with users >> that you're free to bully into submission. If you don't have something >> useful to contribute, why not just keep it to yourself? > > If you show me outlook actually working on large projects then i will stop. You're not necessarily wrong about Outlook vis-a-vis IMAP. You're very wrong about how much power an email admin has in a real organization. Please take the non-constructive flaming and cursing somewhere else, as others have suggested. -Brian
Re: [Dovecot] Outlook 2010 very slow when using IMAP - are there any tweaks?
It's not funny at all, using certain references as you like doing. I don't remember when I last heard such words on this list. What do you fear?
Re: [Dovecot] Outlook 2010 very slow when using IMAP - are there any tweaks?
Speaking of truth and facts, you've had a lot of advice here lately for someone who clearly has never worked on anything but toy projects with users that you're free to bully into submission. If you don't have something useful to contribute, why not just keep it to yourself? If you show me outlook actually working on large projects then i will stop.
Re: [Dovecot] Outlook 2010 very slow when using IMAP - are there any tweaks?
No policy can override truth and facts. I'm not going to comment other than say that this sub-thread probably needs to continue on: alt.flames.anti-microsoft.linux.jihad no. no jihad. No linux actually (i don't use linux). That's fact. If someone want to use outlook then fine, but should not expect anyone else than microsoft to fix it's problems and speed. It is nothing to do with dovecot. All my experience with that shit now is remote. I quite often handle complaints from users that a) "my mail wasn't delivered to somebody." After checking logs i found that recipent's server received mail with success. But mail disappeared then. Sometimes reappeared after a week, sometimes many times, or never ;) The reason was microsoft exchange on recipient side. Sometimes - badly configured antispam. b) reverse - "i don't receive mail from someone". Because someone's MS exchange server didn't even try to send it. c) i'm getting some strange attachment that i cannot open. (winmail.dat) my answer: Ask sender to send attachments according to standards
Re: [Dovecot] Outlook 2010 very slow when using IMAP - are there any tweaks?
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Wojciech Puchar < woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote: > Hi, must be your setup no Problems here with >>> Outlook 2010, sorry no time recent for analyse your posted config >>> >> >> I don't have any problems with it either. sounds like it could be a >> networking problem. I have also heard on the Postfix list about some AV >> programs causing problems. >> > If you don't have problems with outlook then you have very little mail per > user. > > Try this shit with 20GB mailbox. It is really funny i promise :) > It's not funny at all, using certain references as you like doing. I don't remember when I last heard such words on this list. Please, if you cannot resist the temptation, s#s.*#crap#g. It keeps this list cleaner. -- Best regards, Odhiambo WASHINGTON, Nairobi,KE +254733744121/+254722743223 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I can't hear you -- I'm using the scrambler.
Re: [Dovecot] Outlook 2010 very slow when using IMAP - are there any tweaks?
On Jul 2, 2012, at 10:54 AM, Wojciech Puchar wrote: >> Wojciech, >> I believe you do recognize that this may be something that requires policy >> changes to take effect. > Of course i do! > > If you are not the one deciding with policy then state clearly that this shit > simply doesn't work, so if the policy is to use it, then the same policy > should state "don't expect e-mail to work". Speaking of truth and facts, you've had a lot of advice here lately for someone who clearly has never worked on anything but toy projects with users that you're free to bully into submission. If you don't have something useful to contribute, why not just keep it to yourself? -Brian
Re: [Dovecot] Outlook 2010 very slow when using IMAP - are there any tweaks?
On 02/07/2012 16:54, Wojciech Puchar wrote: Wojciech, I believe you do recognize that this may be something that requires policy changes to take effect. Of course i do! If you are not the one deciding with policy then state clearly that this shit simply doesn't work, so if the policy is to use it, then the same policy should state "don't expect e-mail to work". No policy can override truth and facts. I'm not going to comment other than say that this sub-thread probably needs to continue on: alt.flames.anti-microsoft.linux.jihad They love these types of thread there :-D -- Regards, Giles Coochey, CCNA, CCNAS NetSecSpec Ltd +44 (0) 7983 877438 http://www.coochey.net http://www.netsecspec.co.uk gi...@coochey.net smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [Dovecot] Outlook 2010 very slow when using IMAP - are there any tweaks?
Hi, must be your setup no Problems here with Outlook 2010, sorry no time recent for analyse your posted config I don't have any problems with it either. sounds like it could be a networking problem. I have also heard on the Postfix list about some AV programs causing problems. If you don't have problems with outlook then you have very little mail per user. Try this shit with 20GB mailbox. It is really funny i promise :)
Re: [Dovecot] Outlook 2010 very slow when using IMAP - are there any tweaks?
Wojciech, I believe you do recognize that this may be something that requires policy changes to take effect. Of course i do! If you are not the one deciding with policy then state clearly that this shit simply doesn't work, so if the policy is to use it, then the same policy should state "don't expect e-mail to work". No policy can override truth and facts.
Re: [Dovecot] Outlook 2010 very slow when using IMAP - are there any tweaks?
On 2012-07-02 11:39 AM, Wojciech Puchar wrote: though this is a bit of a side question, has anybody had an issue while running Outlook 2010 with Dovecot? No because i don't use that shit and enforce anyone not to do this. Outlook is terrible and even worse with imap. It is not Dovecot fault and have nothing to Dovecot. Just replace Outlook with real MUA that actually works. Please don't be an ass - if you can't help with the actual problem, just keep comments like this to yourself. Many companies require Outlook, and the fact is, as an EXCHANGE client, Outlook works extremely well. I agree that as a standalone IMAP client it isn't the best, but 2010 is much better than 2003 and earlier versions... -- Best regards, Charles
Re: [Dovecot] Outlook 2010 very slow when using IMAP - are there any tweaks?
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 17:00:07 +0200 Robert Schetterer articulated: > Am 02.07.2012 16:34, schrieb Kaya Saman: > > Hi, > > > > though this is a bit of a side question, has anybody had an issue > > while running Outlook 2010 with Dovecot? > > > > The reason why I am asking is that I have setup a Dovecot 2.1.7 > > server on FreeBSD which works fantastically with Thunderbird but > > Outlook seems to be twice as slow in transferring information > > across?? > > Hi, must be your setup no Problems here with > Outlook 2010, sorry no time recent for analyse your posted config I don't have any problems with it either. sounds like it could be a networking problem. I have also heard on the Postfix list about some AV programs causing problems. -- Jerry ♔ Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __
Re: [Dovecot] Outlook 2010 very slow when using IMAP - are there any tweaks?
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Wojciech Puchar < woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote: > though this is a bit of a side question, has anybody had an issue while >> running Outlook 2010 with Dovecot? >> > No because i don't use that shit and enforce anyone not to do this. > > Outlook is terrible and even worse with imap. It is not Dovecot fault and > have nothing to Dovecot. > > Just replace Outlook with real MUA that actually works. > > If someone wants to continue using that shit then it is not your problem > but his/her problem, and all responsibility of doing this should go to the > user. > > The only tweak is to install real mail client. period. > Wojciech, I believe you do recognize that this may be something that requires policy changes to take effect. -- Best regards, Odhiambo WASHINGTON, Nairobi,KE +254733744121/+254722743223 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I can't hear you -- I'm using the scrambler.
Re: [Dovecot] Outlook 2010 very slow when using IMAP - are there any tweaks?
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Giles Coochey wrote: > On 02/07/2012 16:22, Giles Coochey wrote: >> >> The size is in KB. I'm afraid cache-timeout and the inner workings >> would be something only Timo or the Source Code know :-) >> > http://wiki2.dovecot.org/Authentication/Caching > > the TTL setting is in seconds - perhaps what you are looking for? > > > > -- > Regards, > > Giles Coochey, CCNA, CCNAS > NetSecSpec Ltd > +44 (0) 7983 877438 > http://www.netsecspec.co.uk > giles.cooc...@netsecspec.co.uk > > > -- > Regards, > > Giles Coochey, CCNA, CCNAS > NetSecSpec Ltd > +44 (0) 7983 877438 > http://www.coochey.net > http://www.netsecspec.co.uk > gi...@coochey.net > > Thanks for that! I added this: auth_cache_size = 4096 auth_cache_ttl = 14400 to my config and checked with dovecot -n I actually managed to knock 13 seconds of the original transfer time! :-) Good but not good enough especially when some of our users have round 20GB of PST file :-( Regards, Kaya
Re: [Dovecot] Outlook 2010 very slow when using IMAP - are there any tweaks?
I prefer Alpine myself but try running that on Windows 7 (forced to at work :-( ). never needed but at least under windows XP it works fine.
Re: [Dovecot] RAID1+md concat+XFS as mailstorage
No, I'm saying you are trolling. A concat of RAID1 pairs has reliability identical to RAID10. not a concat but separate filesystem.
Re: [Dovecot] Outlook 2010 very slow when using IMAP - are there any tweaks?
though this is a bit of a side question, has anybody had an issue while running Outlook 2010 with Dovecot? No because i don't use that shit and enforce anyone not to do this. Outlook is terrible and even worse with imap. It is not Dovecot fault and have nothing to Dovecot. Just replace Outlook with real MUA that actually works. If someone wants to continue using that shit then it is not your problem but his/her problem, and all responsibility of doing this should go to the user. The only tweak is to install real mail client. period.
Re: [Dovecot] Outlook 2010 very slow when using IMAP - are there any tweaks?
On 02/07/2012 16:22, Giles Coochey wrote: The size is in KB. I'm afraid cache-timeout and the inner workings would be something only Timo or the Source Code know :-) http://wiki2.dovecot.org/Authentication/Caching the TTL setting is in seconds - perhaps what you are looking for? -- Regards, Giles Coochey, CCNA, CCNAS NetSecSpec Ltd +44 (0) 7983 877438 http://www.netsecspec.co.uk giles.cooc...@netsecspec.co.uk -- Regards, Giles Coochey, CCNA, CCNAS NetSecSpec Ltd +44 (0) 7983 877438 http://www.coochey.net http://www.netsecspec.co.uk gi...@coochey.net smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [Dovecot] Outlook 2010 very slow when using IMAP - are there any tweaks?
On 02/07/2012 16:21, Kaya Saman wrote: Or perhaps try auth_cache_size = 1024 To cache authentications. -- Regards, Giles Coochey, CCNA, CCNAS NetSecSpec Ltd +44 (0) 7983 877438 http://www.coochey.net http://www.netsecspec.co.uk gi...@coochey.net Thanks Giles :-) I think that has made things a bit better.. In terms of the cache, is that measured in seconds?? Regards, Kaya The size is in KB. I'm afraid cache-timeout and the inner workings would be something only Timo or the Source Code know :-) -- Regards, Giles Coochey, CCNA, CCNAS NetSecSpec Ltd +44 (0) 7983 877438 http://www.coochey.net http://www.netsecspec.co.uk gi...@coochey.net smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [Dovecot] Outlook 2010 very slow when using IMAP - are there any tweaks?
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Giles Coochey wrote: > On 02/07/2012 16:02, Giles Coochey wrote: >> >> On 02/07/2012 15:51, Kaya Saman wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hi Nicola, >>> >>> there is no specific difference apart from seeing many of these errors: >>> >>> Jun 26 15:10:11 imap(): Error: Index >>> /mail/AD_Mail///Maildir/.Archive/dovecot.index: Lost log for >>> seq=2 offset=77008 >>> Jun 26 15:10:11 imap(): Warning: fscking index file >>> /mail/AD_Mail///Maildir/.Archive/dovecot.index >>> Jun 26 15:10:11 imap(): Error: Fixed index file >>> /mail/AD_Mail///Maildir/.Archive/dovecot.index: log_file_seq 2 >>> -> 3 >>> Jun 26 15:10:26 auth: Error: Got NTLMSSP neg_flags=0xa2088207 >>> Jun 26 15:10:26 auth: Error: Got user=[] domain=[] >>> workstation=[WKS-41] len1=24 len2=278 >>> Jun 26 15:10:26 auth: Error: Login for user []\[]@[WKS-41] >>> failed due to [Reading winbind reply failed!] >>> Jun 26 15:10:32 auth: Error: Got NTLMSSP neg_flags=0xa2088207 >>> >>> >>> >> From the Dovecot wiki about ntlm_auth: >> >> Dovecot currently does blocking lookups, so if ntlm_auth is slow on >> responding (e.g. network problems), Dovecot blocks all other authentication >> requests until it's finished. >> >> Just wondering if Outlook parallelises it's sessions and ntlm_auth is >> blocking because of the timing between the requests. >> >> Have you tried a test user with local authentication? >> > Or perhaps try > > auth_cache_size = 1024 > > To cache authentications. > > > -- > Regards, > > Giles Coochey, CCNA, CCNAS > NetSecSpec Ltd > +44 (0) 7983 877438 > http://www.coochey.net > http://www.netsecspec.co.uk > gi...@coochey.net > > Thanks Giles :-) I think that has made things a bit better.. In terms of the cache, is that measured in seconds?? Regards, Kaya
Re: [Dovecot] Outlook 2010 very slow when using IMAP - are there any tweaks?
On 02/07/2012 16:02, Giles Coochey wrote: On 02/07/2012 15:51, Kaya Saman wrote: Hi Nicola, there is no specific difference apart from seeing many of these errors: Jun 26 15:10:11 imap(): Error: Index /mail/AD_Mail///Maildir/.Archive/dovecot.index: Lost log for seq=2 offset=77008 Jun 26 15:10:11 imap(): Warning: fscking index file /mail/AD_Mail///Maildir/.Archive/dovecot.index Jun 26 15:10:11 imap(): Error: Fixed index file /mail/AD_Mail///Maildir/.Archive/dovecot.index: log_file_seq 2 -> 3 Jun 26 15:10:26 auth: Error: Got NTLMSSP neg_flags=0xa2088207 Jun 26 15:10:26 auth: Error: Got user=[] domain=[] workstation=[WKS-41] len1=24 len2=278 Jun 26 15:10:26 auth: Error: Login for user []\[]@[WKS-41] failed due to [Reading winbind reply failed!] Jun 26 15:10:32 auth: Error: Got NTLMSSP neg_flags=0xa2088207 From the Dovecot wiki about ntlm_auth: Dovecot currently does blocking lookups, so if ntlm_auth is slow on responding (e.g. network problems), Dovecot blocks all other authentication requests until it's finished. Just wondering if Outlook parallelises it's sessions and ntlm_auth is blocking because of the timing between the requests. Have you tried a test user with local authentication? Or perhaps try auth_cache_size = 1024 To cache authentications. -- Regards, Giles Coochey, CCNA, CCNAS NetSecSpec Ltd +44 (0) 7983 877438 http://www.coochey.net http://www.netsecspec.co.uk gi...@coochey.net smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [Dovecot] Outlook 2010 very slow when using IMAP - are there any tweaks?
On 02/07/2012 15:51, Kaya Saman wrote: Hi Nicola, there is no specific difference apart from seeing many of these errors: Jun 26 15:10:11 imap(): Error: Index /mail/AD_Mail///Maildir/.Archive/dovecot.index: Lost log for seq=2 offset=77008 Jun 26 15:10:11 imap(): Warning: fscking index file /mail/AD_Mail///Maildir/.Archive/dovecot.index Jun 26 15:10:11 imap(): Error: Fixed index file /mail/AD_Mail///Maildir/.Archive/dovecot.index: log_file_seq 2 -> 3 Jun 26 15:10:26 auth: Error: Got NTLMSSP neg_flags=0xa2088207 Jun 26 15:10:26 auth: Error: Got user=[] domain=[] workstation=[WKS-41] len1=24 len2=278 Jun 26 15:10:26 auth: Error: Login for user []\[]@[WKS-41] failed due to [Reading winbind reply failed!] Jun 26 15:10:32 auth: Error: Got NTLMSSP neg_flags=0xa2088207 From the Dovecot wiki about ntlm_auth: Dovecot currently does blocking lookups, so if ntlm_auth is slow on responding (e.g. network problems), Dovecot blocks all other authentication requests until it's finished. Just wondering if Outlook parallelises it's sessions and ntlm_auth is blocking because of the timing between the requests. Have you tried a test user with local authentication? -- Regards, Giles Coochey, CCNA, CCNAS NetSecSpec Ltd +44 (0) 7983 877438 http://www.coochey.net http://www.netsecspec.co.uk gi...@coochey.net smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [Dovecot] Outlook 2010 very slow when using IMAP - are there any tweaks?
Am 02.07.2012 16:34, schrieb Kaya Saman: > Hi, > > though this is a bit of a side question, has anybody had an issue > while running Outlook 2010 with Dovecot? > > The reason why I am asking is that I have setup a Dovecot 2.1.7 server > on FreeBSD which works fantastically with Thunderbird but Outlook > seems to be twice as slow in transferring information across?? Hi, must be your setup no Problems here with Outlook 2010, sorry no time recent for analyse your posted config -- Best Regards MfG Robert Schetterer
Re: [Dovecot] Outlook 2010 very slow when using IMAP - are there any tweaks?
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Mailing List SVR
wrote:
> Il 02/07/2012 16:34, Kaya Saman ha scritto:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> though this is a bit of a side question, has anybody had an issue
>> while running Outlook 2010 with Dovecot?
>>
>> The reason why I am asking is that I have setup a Dovecot 2.1.7 server
>> on FreeBSD which works fantastically with Thunderbird but Outlook
>> seems to be twice as slow in transferring information across??
>>
>>
>> # dovecot -n
>> # 2.1.7: /usr/local/etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf
>> # OS: FreeBSD 8.2-RELEASE amd64
>> auth_debug = yes
>> auth_mechanisms = plain ntlm login
>> auth_use_winbind = yes
>> auth_username_format = %n
>> auth_verbose = yes
>> auth_winbind_helper_path = /usr/local/bin/ntlm_auth
>> disable_plaintext_auth = no
>> info_log_path = /var/log/dovecot-info.log
>> log_path = /var/log/dovecot.log
>> mail_gid = mail_user
>> mail_home = /mail/AD_Mail/%Ld/%Ln
>> mail_location = maildir:~/Maildir
>> mail_uid = mail_user
>> passdb {
>>args = failure_show_msg=yes
>>driver = pam
>> }
>> pop3_fast_size_lookups = yes
>> pop3_lock_session = yes
>> pop3_no_flag_updates = yes
>> protocols = imap pop3
>> ssl = no
>> userdb {
>>driver = static
>> }
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Since (like most corporate organizations out there) we solely run
>> Outlook coupled to Exchange, this excersize was meant to be a way of
>> getting rid of PST files. We don't run out own Exchange however, and
>> don't have any control over it either.
>>
>>
>> My workaround was to simply use the Outlook GUI space to transfer
>> emails between Exchange and Dovecot running the IMAPv4 protocol.
>>
>>
>> For whatever reason Outlook is being really garbage about dealing with
>> stuff and since I don't know Outlook or MS products very well (being
>> your typical average OpenSource guy) I was wondering if there were any
>> tweaks that could be made within Outlook to speed it up or in Dovecot
>> to work better with Outlook?
>>
>>
>> I guess one could get sidetracked into the argument of mdbox vs.
>> Maildir from my config however, Thunderbird is really fast and
>> transfers large amounts of data really easily. Reaches round 130Mbps
>> using nload performance grapher, while Outlook only manages ~50kbps
>> but spikes at 2-3Mbps on occassion.
>
>
> Try to understand (from dovecot logs) if there are difference between
> outlook and thunderbird, for example outlook connect over ssl and
> thunderbird no ecc..
>
> Nicola
>
>
>>
>>
>
>
Hi Nicola,
there is no specific difference apart from seeing many of these errors:
Jun 26 15:10:11 imap(): Error: Index
/mail/AD_Mail///Maildir/.Archive/dovecot.index: Lost log for
seq=2 offset=77008
Jun 26 15:10:11 imap(): Warning: fscking index file
/mail/AD_Mail///Maildir/.Archive/dovecot.index
Jun 26 15:10:11 imap(): Error: Fixed index file
/mail/AD_Mail///Maildir/.Archive/dovecot.index: log_file_seq 2
-> 3
Jun 26 15:10:26 auth: Error: Got NTLMSSP neg_flags=0xa2088207
Jun 26 15:10:26 auth: Error: Got user=[] domain=[]
workstation=[WKS-41] len1=24 len2=278
Jun 26 15:10:26 auth: Error: Login for user []\[]@[WKS-41]
failed due to [Reading winbind reply failed!]
Jun 26 15:10:32 auth: Error: Got NTLMSSP neg_flags=0xa2088207
Regards,
Kaya
Re: [Dovecot] Outlook 2010 very slow when using IMAP - are there any tweaks?
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Giles Coochey wrote: > On 02/07/2012 15:34, Kaya Saman wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> though this is a bit of a side question, has anybody had an issue >> while running Outlook 2010 with Dovecot? >> >> > Yes, as far as being an IMAP client Outlook 2010 has not been any good for > me, slow, hangs, various non-intuitive issues... > > Thunderbird works a treat and I use it all the time, until someone sends me > a meeting request from an Outlook client. > > -- > Regards, > > Giles Coochey, CCNA, CCNAS > NetSecSpec Ltd > +44 (0) 7983 877438 > http://www.coochey.net > http://www.netsecspec.co.uk > gi...@coochey.net > > Thanks Giles, but unfortunately as stated before T-Bird won't connect to our remote Exchange server which doesn't have IMAP active for various reasons.. I prefer Alpine myself but try running that on Windows 7 (forced to at work :-( ). Regards, Kaya
Re: [Dovecot] Outlook 2010 very slow when using IMAP - are there any tweaks?
Il 02/07/2012 16:34, Kaya Saman ha scritto:
Hi,
though this is a bit of a side question, has anybody had an issue
while running Outlook 2010 with Dovecot?
The reason why I am asking is that I have setup a Dovecot 2.1.7 server
on FreeBSD which works fantastically with Thunderbird but Outlook
seems to be twice as slow in transferring information across??
# dovecot -n
# 2.1.7: /usr/local/etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf
# OS: FreeBSD 8.2-RELEASE amd64
auth_debug = yes
auth_mechanisms = plain ntlm login
auth_use_winbind = yes
auth_username_format = %n
auth_verbose = yes
auth_winbind_helper_path = /usr/local/bin/ntlm_auth
disable_plaintext_auth = no
info_log_path = /var/log/dovecot-info.log
log_path = /var/log/dovecot.log
mail_gid = mail_user
mail_home = /mail/AD_Mail/%Ld/%Ln
mail_location = maildir:~/Maildir
mail_uid = mail_user
passdb {
args = failure_show_msg=yes
driver = pam
}
pop3_fast_size_lookups = yes
pop3_lock_session = yes
pop3_no_flag_updates = yes
protocols = imap pop3
ssl = no
userdb {
driver = static
}
Since (like most corporate organizations out there) we solely run
Outlook coupled to Exchange, this excersize was meant to be a way of
getting rid of PST files. We don't run out own Exchange however, and
don't have any control over it either.
My workaround was to simply use the Outlook GUI space to transfer
emails between Exchange and Dovecot running the IMAPv4 protocol.
For whatever reason Outlook is being really garbage about dealing with
stuff and since I don't know Outlook or MS products very well (being
your typical average OpenSource guy) I was wondering if there were any
tweaks that could be made within Outlook to speed it up or in Dovecot
to work better with Outlook?
I guess one could get sidetracked into the argument of mdbox vs.
Maildir from my config however, Thunderbird is really fast and
transfers large amounts of data really easily. Reaches round 130Mbps
using nload performance grapher, while Outlook only manages ~50kbps
but spikes at 2-3Mbps on occassion.
Try to understand (from dovecot logs) if there are difference between
outlook and thunderbird, for example outlook connect over ssl and
thunderbird no ecc..
Nicola
Can anyone offer any guidence or assistance in this matter??
Actually wherever I run Dovecot, including my servers at home, it is
fast and reliable. Yes I know MS is the polar opposite of anything
worth using however, my company won't change and I'm stuck banging my
head against the wall while trying to get MS to interface with
ANYTHING.
Regards,
Kaya
Re: [Dovecot] Outlook 2010 very slow when using IMAP - are there any tweaks?
On 02/07/2012 15:34, Kaya Saman wrote: Hi, though this is a bit of a side question, has anybody had an issue while running Outlook 2010 with Dovecot? Yes, as far as being an IMAP client Outlook 2010 has not been any good for me, slow, hangs, various non-intuitive issues... Thunderbird works a treat and I use it all the time, until someone sends me a meeting request from an Outlook client. -- Regards, Giles Coochey, CCNA, CCNAS NetSecSpec Ltd +44 (0) 7983 877438 http://www.coochey.net http://www.netsecspec.co.uk gi...@coochey.net smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
[Dovecot] Outlook 2010 very slow when using IMAP - are there any tweaks?
Hi,
though this is a bit of a side question, has anybody had an issue
while running Outlook 2010 with Dovecot?
The reason why I am asking is that I have setup a Dovecot 2.1.7 server
on FreeBSD which works fantastically with Thunderbird but Outlook
seems to be twice as slow in transferring information across??
# dovecot -n
# 2.1.7: /usr/local/etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf
# OS: FreeBSD 8.2-RELEASE amd64
auth_debug = yes
auth_mechanisms = plain ntlm login
auth_use_winbind = yes
auth_username_format = %n
auth_verbose = yes
auth_winbind_helper_path = /usr/local/bin/ntlm_auth
disable_plaintext_auth = no
info_log_path = /var/log/dovecot-info.log
log_path = /var/log/dovecot.log
mail_gid = mail_user
mail_home = /mail/AD_Mail/%Ld/%Ln
mail_location = maildir:~/Maildir
mail_uid = mail_user
passdb {
args = failure_show_msg=yes
driver = pam
}
pop3_fast_size_lookups = yes
pop3_lock_session = yes
pop3_no_flag_updates = yes
protocols = imap pop3
ssl = no
userdb {
driver = static
}
Since (like most corporate organizations out there) we solely run
Outlook coupled to Exchange, this excersize was meant to be a way of
getting rid of PST files. We don't run out own Exchange however, and
don't have any control over it either.
My workaround was to simply use the Outlook GUI space to transfer
emails between Exchange and Dovecot running the IMAPv4 protocol.
For whatever reason Outlook is being really garbage about dealing with
stuff and since I don't know Outlook or MS products very well (being
your typical average OpenSource guy) I was wondering if there were any
tweaks that could be made within Outlook to speed it up or in Dovecot
to work better with Outlook?
I guess one could get sidetracked into the argument of mdbox vs.
Maildir from my config however, Thunderbird is really fast and
transfers large amounts of data really easily. Reaches round 130Mbps
using nload performance grapher, while Outlook only manages ~50kbps
but spikes at 2-3Mbps on occassion.
Can anyone offer any guidence or assistance in this matter??
Actually wherever I run Dovecot, including my servers at home, it is
fast and reliable. Yes I know MS is the polar opposite of anything
worth using however, my company won't change and I'm stuck banging my
head against the wall while trying to get MS to interface with
ANYTHING.
Regards,
Kaya
[Dovecot] mailboxes missing after upgrade from 2.1.4 to 2.1.7
Hi all,
I mentioned this on the #dovecot irc channel, but I thought I would post
here so I can provide more details.
The basic problem is that when I upgraded from 2.1.4 to 2.1.7, some
users no longer are able to see their folders in pine/alpine. The
folders are actually there, and are subscribed (according to doveadm)
and its possible to do operations on those folders, if you know the
name (for example, opening the folder works fine if you know the name).
When I downgrade to 2.1.4 again, the folders appear again, so its
clearly something that changed between the two versions. I looked
through the changelog, and found a few possibile culprits, I think
pine/alpine use imapc, so that could be related:
. imapc: Use imapc_list_prefix also for listing subscriptions
. Fixed looking up parent mailbox name with different namespace vs. layout
separators.
. imapc: Don't list mailboxes that don't match list patterns.
. layout=fs: Fixed listing mailboxes with prefix=INBOX/
. LIST with mailbox {} settings incorrectly set subscribed-flags.
Here is my dovecot -n output:
# OS: Linux 2.6.32-5-amd64 x86_64 Debian 6.0.5
auth_default_realm = example.net
auth_verbose = yes
default_process_limit = 256
default_vsz_limit = 512 M
dict {
expire = mysql:/etc/dovecot/dovecot-dict-sql.conf
quota = mysql:/etc/dovecot/dovecot-dict-sql.conf
}
disable_plaintext_auth = no
first_valid_gid = 8
first_valid_uid = 8
last_valid_gid = 8
last_valid_uid = 8
listen = *
login_greeting = howdy, ready.
mail_location = mdbox:~/mdbox:INDEX=/srv/dovecot_indexes/%d/%1n/%n
mail_plugins = expire quota zlib stats
maildir_very_dirty_syncs = yes
namespace {
inbox = yes
location =
prefix =
separator = .
}
namespace {
alias_for =
hidden = yes
inbox = no
list = no
location =
prefix = INBOX.
separator = .
}
passdb {
args = /etc/dovecot/dovecot-sql.conf
driver = sql
}
plugin {
antispam_allow_append_to_spam = yes
antispam_backend = pipe
antispam_debug_target = syslog
antispam_pipe_program = /usr/local/bin/train_spam
antispam_pipe_program_args = -d;10.0.1.109
antispam_pipe_program_notspam_arg = ham
antispam_pipe_program_spam_arg = spam
antispam_pipe_tmpdir = /var/tmp
antispam_signature = X-Spam-Flag
antispam_signature_missing = error
antispam_spam_pattern_ignorecase = SPAM
antispam_trash_pattern = trash;Trash;Deleted *
expire = Trash
expire2 = Trash/*
expire3 = Spam
expire_dict = proxy::expire
quota = dict:Your mail quota::proxy::quota
quota_rule = *:bytes=100663296
quota_rule2 = Trash:bytes=+20%%
quota_rule3 = Spam:bytes=+10%%
quota_rule4 = INBOX.Trash:bytes=+20%%
quota_rule5 = INBOX.Spam:bytes=+10%%
quota_rule6 = INBOX.restored_from_backups:bytes=+500%%
sieve = ~/.dovecot.sieve
sieve_after = /var/lib/dovecot/sieve/after.sieve
sieve_before = /var/lib/dovecot/sieve/default.sieve
sieve_dir = ~/sieve
stats_refresh = 30 secs
stats_track_cmds = yes
zlib_save = gz
zlib_save_level = 6
}
postmaster_address = postmas...@example.net
protocols = " imap pop3"
service anvil {
unix_listener anvil {
group = dovecot
mode = 0660
user = root
}
}
service auth {
unix_listener auth-userdb {
group = mail
mode = 0600
user = mail
}
}
service dict {
unix_listener dict {
group = mail
mode = 0600
user = mail
}
}
service imap-login {
process_min_avail = 10
service_count = 0
vsz_limit = 512 M
}
service imap-postlogin {
executable = script-login /usr/local/sbin/postlogin_imap
}
service imap {
executable = imap imap-postlogin
process_limit = 2048
}
service pop3-login {
process_min_avail = 10
service_count = 0
vsz_limit = 512 M
}
service pop3-postlogin {
executable = script-login /usr/local/sbin/postlogin_pop
}
service pop3 {
executable = pop3 pop3-postlogin
}
service stats {
fifo_listener stats-mail {
mode = 0600
user = mail
}
}
ssl_cert = https://help.example.net/quota for more help.
}
}
protocol pop3 {
mail_plugins = expire quota zlib stats
pop3_client_workarounds = outlook-no-nuls oe-ns-eoh
pop3_uidl_format = %g
}
As requested by tss in #dovecot, I attempted to add 'rawlog' to:
service imap-postlogin {
executable = script-login /usr/local/sbin/postlogin_imap
}
to get:
service imap-postlogin {
executable = script-login rawlogin /usr/local/sbin/postlogin_imap
}
but with that, it doesn't even open the INBOX folder, and there is
nothing in the user's rawlog folder, I get this error:
dovecot: imap-postlogin: Error: Fatal: This process must not be run as root
it didn't open even the INBOX imap folder
I went over the http://wiki2.dovecot.org/Debugging/Rawlog and made sure
everything was correct there, but it still didn't work right.
Any ideas or suggestions of things to try would be greatly appreciated!
thanks,
micah
--
[Dovecot] Authentication failed (migrate from 2.0.13 to 2.0.17)
Hi,
I use OpenBSD 5.1, roundcube 0.7.2 and dovecot 2.0.17
(684381041dc4+), mysql.
I get the following error when i try to connect
to imap :
roundcube: IMAP Error: Login failed for test...@mydomain.net
from 192.168.0.92. AUTHENTICATE PLAIN: Authentication failed. in
/var/www/webmail/roundcubemail-0.7.2/program/include/rcube_imap.php on
line 205 (POST /webmail/?_task=login&_action=login)
dovecot:
imap-login: Aborted login (auth failed, 1 attempts): user=,
method=CRAM-MD5, rip=127.0.0.1, lip=127.0.0.1, TLS
Jul 2 15:19:13 mx
dovecot: auth-worker: mysql(localhost): Connected to database mail
Jul 2
15:19:15 mx dovecot: imap-login: Aborted login (auth failed, 1
attempts): user=, method=PLAIN, rip=127.0.0.1, lip=127.0.0.1, secured
Can you help me please ?
Here my config files :
*dovecot-sql.conf
driver = mysql
connect = host=localhost dbname=mail
user=postfix password=postfix
default_pass_scheme = PLAIN
password_query
= SELECT email as user, password FROM users WHERE email =
'%u'
user_query = SELECT id as uid, id as gid, home,
concat('*:storage=', quota, 'M') AS quota_rule FROM users WHERE email =
'%u'
*dovecot.conf
#i use this on OpenBSD 5.0 and dovecot 2.0.13,
works, but it doesn't seem to work with this version :-(
# 2.0.13:
/etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf
# OS: OpenBSD 5.0 i386 ffs
auth_mechanisms =
plain login digest-md5 cram-md5 apop
auth_debug=yes
base_dir =
/var/dovecot/
first_valid_uid = 1000
mail_location =
maildir:/var/mailserv/mail/%d/%n
mmap_disable = yes
passdb {
args =
/etc/dovecot-sql.conf
driver = sql
}
plugin {
antispam_mail_notspam =
--ham
antispam_mail_sendmail = /usr/local/bin/sa-learn
antispam_mail_sendmail_args = --username=%u
antispam_mail_spam =
--spam
antispam_mail_tmpdir = /tmp
antispam_signature = X-Spam-Flag
antispam_signature_missing = move
antispam_spam =
SPAM;Spam;spam;Junk;junk
antispam_trash = trash;Trash;Deleted Items;
Deleted Messages
autocreate = Trash
autocreate2 = Spam
autocreate3 =
Sent
autocreate4 = Drafts
autosubscribe = Trash
autosubscribe2 =
Spam
autosubscribe3 = Sent
autosubscribe4 = Drafts
quota = maildir
quota_rule = *:storage=5G
quota_rule2 = Trash:storage=+100M
quota_warning = storage=95%% /usr/local/bin/quota-warning.sh 95
quota_warning2 = storage=80%% /usr/local/bin/quota-warning.sh 80
sieve
= ~/.dovecot.sieve
sieve_dir = ~/sieve
}
protocols = imap sieve
pop3
service auth {
unix_listener /var/run/dovecot-auth-master {
group
= _dovecot
mode = 0666
user = _dovecot
}
unix_listener
/var/spool/postfix/private/auth {
group = _postfix
mode = 0660
user =
_postfix
}
}
service imap-login {
service_count = 0
#user =
_dovecot
vsz_limit = 64 M
}
service pop3-login {
service_count = 0
#user = _dovecot
vsz_limit = 64 M
}
ssl_cert =ssl_cipher_list =
HIGH:MEDIUM:+TLSv1:!SSLv2:+SSLv3
ssl_key =
userdb {
args =
/etc/dovecot-sql.conf
driver = sql
}
#userdb {
# driver =
passwd
#}
protocol imap {
imap_client_workarounds = delay-newmail
mail_plugins = quota imap_quota autocreate
}
protocol pop3 {
mail_plugins = quota
pop3_client_workarounds = outlook-no-nuls
oe-ns-eoh
pop3_uidl_format = %08Xv%08Xu
}
protocol lda {
auth_socket_path = /var/run/dovecot-auth-master
mail_plugins =
$mail_plugins sieve
postmaster_address = postmas...@mx.itdebug.net
sendmail_path = /usr/sbin/sendmail
}
default_login_user =
_dovenull
default_internal_user = _dovecot
##
## ManageSieve specific
settings
##
# Service definitions
service managesieve-login {
inet_listener sieve {
port = 4190
}
inet_listener sieve_deprecated
{
port = 2000
}
}
service managesieve {
#Max. number of ManageSieve
processes (connections)
#process_count = 1024
}
# Service
configuration
protocol sieve {
}
Thank you very much.
--
Wesley
Re: [Dovecot] + sub addressing setup
On Mon, July 2, 2012 11:23 pm, Voytek Eymont wrote:
> I have Dovecot/Postfix/MySQL/PostfixAdmin,
sorry, forgot to include conf setup:
doveconf -n
# 2.1.1: /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf
# OS: Linux 2.6.32-220.23.1.el6.x86_64 x86_64 CentOS release 6.2 (Final)
auth_cache_size = 1 k
auth_mechanisms = plain login
disable_plaintext_auth = no
log_timestamp = "%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S "
mail_location = maildir:~/Maildir
mail_privileged_group = mail
mbox_write_locks = fcntl
namespace inbox {
inbox = yes
location =
mailbox Drafts {
special_use = \Drafts
}
mailbox Junk {
special_use = \Junk
}
mailbox Sent {
special_use = \Sent
}
mailbox "Sent Messages" {
special_use = \Sent
}
mailbox Trash {
special_use = \Trash
}
prefix =
}
passdb {
args = /etc/dovecot/dovecot-sql.conf
driver = sql
}
passdb {
driver = pam
}
plugin {
autocreate = Spam
autosubscribe = Spam
}
protocols = imap pop3
service auth {
unix_listener /var/spool/postfix/private/auth {
group = postfix
mode = 0666
user = postfix
}
user = root
}
ssl = required
ssl_cert =
[Dovecot] + sub addressing setup
I have Dovecot/Postfix/MySQL/PostfixAdmin, I'd like to setup + sub addressing (for +spam and possibly user-defined +folders) I have setup a user+spam folder path in PostfixAdmin as so; vvv+spam@tld path:tld/vvv@tld/.spam/ that requires me to put a 'duplicate' user with the + and +path for each user, the folks on PostfixAdmin suggested that Dovecot might have a better way of handling this, how do I accomplish this in Dovecot ? thanks for any suggestions or tips -- Voytek
Re: [Dovecot] [PATCH] GSSAPI authorization and virtual users
On Wed, 2012-06-27 at 12:04 +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote: > On Tue, 2012-03-06 at 18:12 +, Sam Morris wrote: > > On Mon, 2012-03-05 at 20:52 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote: > > > On 5.3.2012, at 20.45, Sam Morris wrote: > > > > > > > 3. The credentials lookup triggers an info log message saying that > > > >credentials for GSSAPI were requested, "but we have only (e.g.) > > > >MD5-CRYPT". The authplugin doesn't actually want the credential, > > > >but I think that the only way the authplugin can trigger a > > > >passdb lookup is by requesting it. > > > > > > I'll look at the rest more closely later, but this should be an easy fix: > > > request "" instead of "GSSAPI". > > > > Thanks for pointing that out. Here's a newer version of the patch with > > that change. I also realised that the gss_buffer is not required in the > > code that runs once the passdb lookup is complete, so I removed the code > > that stashes it in struct gssapi_auth_request. > > I finally looked into this and did some changes. Does it still work? :) > http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.2/rev/183adc90781c Works fine, thanks! -- Sam Morris
Re: [Dovecot] UTF-8 mailbox name STATUS response
On 2.7.2012, at 14.06, Ewald Dieterich wrote:
> >> . CREATE "INBOX.Euro &IKw-"
> >> . OK Create completed.
> >> . LIST "" "INBOX.Euro &IKw-"
> >> * LIST (\HasNoChildren) "." "INBOX.Euro &IKw-"
> >> . STATUS "INBOX.Euro &IKw-" (MESSAGES)
> >> * STATUS {14}
> >> INBOX.Euro € (MESSAGES 0)
> >> . OK Status completed.
> >>
> >> Is this intended? My Perl script based on Mail::IMAPTalk doesn't like
> >> it and I wonder if there are other clients that don't cope with it.
> >
> > Most likely that mailbox exists like that in the filesystem. It
> > shouldn't. Dovecot hasn't allowed creating those for several years
> > now.
>
> In the filesystem the mailbox is in mUTF-7:
Oh, sorry. I didn't even consider that it could have been broken for this long
in v2.1.x without anyone noticing. Fixed:
http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.1/rev/a698fccd37c3
Time for v2.1.8 soon I guess :)
Re: [Dovecot] UTF-8 mailbox name STATUS response
On 07/02/12 11:25, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On 2.7.2012, at 12.07, Ewald Dieterich wrote:
>> STATUS in Dovecot 2.1.7 returns the UTF-8 decoded folder name in a
>> string literal:
>>
>> . CREATE "INBOX.Euro &IKw-"
>> . OK Create completed.
>> . LIST "" "INBOX.Euro &IKw-"
>> * LIST (\HasNoChildren) "." "INBOX.Euro &IKw-"
>> . STATUS "INBOX.Euro &IKw-" (MESSAGES)
>> * STATUS {14}
>> INBOX.Euro € (MESSAGES 0)
>> . OK Status completed.
>>
>> Is this intended? My Perl script based on Mail::IMAPTalk doesn't like
>> it and I wonder if there are other clients that don't cope with it.
>
> Most likely that mailbox exists like that in the filesystem. It
> shouldn't. Dovecot hasn't allowed creating those for several years
> now.
In the filesystem the mailbox is in mUTF-7:
# ls mailboxes/
Euro &IKw-/ INBOX/ Trash/
> There's no good way to handle that, because even if Dovecot
> translated it to mUTF-7 it couldn't access the mailbox because it
> wouldn't exist as mUTF-7 in the filesystem..
To create the LIST response from my example above you do exactly this:
convert the mailbox name to mUTF-7.
. LIST "" "INBOX.Euro &IKw-"
* LIST (\HasNoChildren) "." "INBOX.Euro &IKw-"
In file imap/cmd-list.c:
static int
list_namespace_mailboxes(struct cmd_list_context *ctx)
[...]
if (imap_utf8_to_utf7(name, mutf7_name) < 0)
i_panic("LIST: Mailbox name not UTF-8: %s", name);
[...]
imap_quote_append_string(str, str_c(mutf7_name), FALSE);
So maybe you could do this for the STATUS response, too?
Thanks for your help!
Re: [Dovecot] lmtp proxy timeout while waiting for reply to DATA reply
On 2.7.2012, at 12.31, Angel L. Mateo wrote: My problem was that this timeout seems to be counted from the beginning of the LMTP connection, so when I have a lot of recipients in the same connection, last ones sometimes timedout. I solved it increasing this timeout with proxy_timeout option and reducing max number of lmtp recipients in postfix. >>> >>> Ah, interesting. These should help: >>> >>> http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.1/rev/27dccff46fe9 >>> http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.1/rev/8a97daa8aff6 >> >> Plus http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.1/rev/569588ff7ef0 although I'm not >> entirely sure if it's needed. The LMTP code is rather ugly and difficult to >> follow.. >> > Are these patches included in any released? (I have 2.1.5) I wrote those 3 hours ago, so no.
Re: [Dovecot] lmtp proxy timeout while waiting for reply to DATA reply
El 02/07/12 09:13, Timo Sirainen escribió: On 2.7.2012, at 10.10, Timo Sirainen wrote: On 2.7.2012, at 9.49, Angel L. Mateo wrote: My problem was that this timeout seems to be counted from the beginning of the LMTP connection, so when I have a lot of recipients in the same connection, last ones sometimes timedout. I solved it increasing this timeout with proxy_timeout option and reducing max number of lmtp recipients in postfix. Ah, interesting. These should help: http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.1/rev/27dccff46fe9 http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.1/rev/8a97daa8aff6 Plus http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.1/rev/569588ff7ef0 although I'm not entirely sure if it's needed. The LMTP code is rather ugly and difficult to follow.. Are these patches included in any released? (I have 2.1.5) -- Angel L. Mateo Martínez Sección de Telemática Área de Tecnologías de la Información y las Comunicaciones Aplicadas (ATICA) http://www.um.es/atica Tfo: 868887590 Fax: 86337
Re: [Dovecot] UTF-8 mailbox name STATUS response
On 2.7.2012, at 12.07, Ewald Dieterich wrote:
> STATUS in Dovecot 2.1.7 returns the UTF-8 decoded folder name in a
> string literal:
>
> . CREATE "INBOX.Euro &IKw-"
> . OK Create completed.
> . LIST "" "INBOX.Euro &IKw-"
> * LIST (\HasNoChildren) "." "INBOX.Euro &IKw-"
> . STATUS "INBOX.Euro &IKw-" (MESSAGES)
> * STATUS {14}
> INBOX.Euro € (MESSAGES 0)
> . OK Status completed.
>
> Is this intended? My Perl script based on Mail::IMAPTalk doesn't like
> it and I wonder if there are other clients that don't cope with it.
Most likely that mailbox exists like that in the filesystem. It shouldn't.
Dovecot hasn't allowed creating those for several years now. There's no good
way to handle that, because even if Dovecot translated it to mUTF-7 it couldn't
access the mailbox because it wouldn't exist as mUTF-7 in the filesystem..
[Dovecot] UTF-8 mailbox name STATUS response
STATUS in Dovecot 2.1.7 returns the UTF-8 decoded folder name in a
string literal:
. CREATE "INBOX.Euro &IKw-"
. OK Create completed.
. LIST "" "INBOX.Euro &IKw-"
* LIST (\HasNoChildren) "." "INBOX.Euro &IKw-"
. STATUS "INBOX.Euro &IKw-" (MESSAGES)
* STATUS {14}
INBOX.Euro € (MESSAGES 0)
. OK Status completed.
Is this intended? My Perl script based on Mail::IMAPTalk doesn't like
it and I wonder if there are other clients that don't cope with it.
Re: [Dovecot] director directing to wrong server (sometimes)
On 2.7.2012, at 9.53, Angel L. Mateo wrote: >>> I have a user, its assigned server is 155.54.211.164. The problem >>> is that I don't know why director sent him yesterday to a different >>> server, because my server was up all the time. Moreover, I'm using >>> poolmon in director servers to check availability of final servers >>> and it didn't report any problem with the server. >> >> Which version of dovecot are you using? >> "doveconf -n" of director and mailbox instance? >> > Sorry. Here you have them I think this shouldn't matter, but would be better to make both %n anyway: auth_username_format = %n director_username_hash = %u
Re: [Dovecot] lmtp proxy timeout while waiting for reply to DATA reply
On 2.7.2012, at 10.10, Timo Sirainen wrote: > On 2.7.2012, at 9.49, Angel L. Mateo wrote: > >> My problem was that this timeout seems to be counted from the beginning >> of the LMTP connection, so when I have a lot of recipients in the same >> connection, last ones sometimes timedout. I solved it increasing this >> timeout with proxy_timeout option and reducing max number of lmtp recipients >> in postfix. > > Ah, interesting. These should help: > > http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.1/rev/27dccff46fe9 > http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.1/rev/8a97daa8aff6 Plus http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.1/rev/569588ff7ef0 although I'm not entirely sure if it's needed. The LMTP code is rather ugly and difficult to follow..
Re: [Dovecot] lmtp proxy timeout while waiting for reply to DATA reply
On 2.7.2012, at 9.49, Angel L. Mateo wrote: > My problem was that this timeout seems to be counted from the beginning > of the LMTP connection, so when I have a lot of recipients in the same > connection, last ones sometimes timedout. I solved it increasing this timeout > with proxy_timeout option and reducing max number of lmtp recipients in > postfix. Ah, interesting. These should help: http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.1/rev/27dccff46fe9 http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.1/rev/8a97daa8aff6
