> We might be a slightly larger install than you (60k users, mail on FAS 3170
> Metrocluster), but we have noticed corruption issues and the director is
> definitely going to see use in our shop. We still use Sendmail+procmail for
> delivery, so no issue there... but we've got hordes of IMAP users
Hi,
> If you don't mind random Dovecot errors about index corruption I guess you're
> fine with how it works now. I guess your mails are delivered to maildirs by
> qmail? If you ever switch to Dovecot LDA you'll probably start getting more
> errors. And if you ever plan to switch to dbox format
I am with Dave on this one.
"Dave McGuire" wrote:
>On 8/27/10 11:15 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
>> I dont think we are living in the 19th century now,
>> I think its time for the html to txt conversion to be scrapped, its
>> screwed up the paragraph formatting ( and few other things in recent
>> time
Dave McGuire put forth on 8/27/2010 10:43 PM:
> If this change is made, I for one will ditch this list and just rely
> on searching the archives. I get enough HTML garbage from clueless
> morons all day long, I don't need more of it from a supposedly clueful
> group.
I use 'mailnews.display.pr
On 8/27/10 11:15 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
I dont think we are living in the 19th century now,
I think its time for the html to txt conversion to be scrapped, its
screwed up the paragraph formatting ( and few other things in recent
times I've seen) more than once, making it look like an a5 size book
I dont think we are living in the 19th century now,
I think its time for the html to txt conversion to be scrapped, its
screwed up the paragraph formatting ( and few other things in recent
times I've seen) more than once, making it look like an a5 size book
page.
how about it?
On Sat, 2010-08-28
On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 04:04 -0700, Brandon Davidson wrote:
> To each their own. If your setup works without it, then fine, don't use
> it... but I don't see why you feel the need to disparage it either. It's
I'll some it up put well by someone who mailed me offlist...
mx-in-1 gets the connectio
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:15:42 +0200, Toorop wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm working on a setup of dovecot 2 + netqmail + vpopmail 5.5 but
> auth doesn't works :(
>
> dovecot -n
> # 2.0.1: /etc/dovecot/dovecot/dovecot.conf
> # OS: Linux 2.6.35.1-rscloud x86_64 Ubuntu 10.04.1 LTS
> auth_debug = yes
> auth_deb
Hey,
for dovecot 1.2 there is a very good reference page for all options.
http://wiki.dovecot.org/MainConfig
is there a reference for dovecot 2.0 in the new wiki? If not, when will
be this page online? Thanks a lot.
--
Gruß
Sascha
Mike Abbott wrote:
There is a roff typo in pigeonhole's sievec.1.in. Roff treats the leading
apostrophe on line 54 as an invalid command and produces bad output:
dump to be written to stdout. The out-file argument may
also be omitted, which has the same effect as
Paul Howarth wrote:
A tarball created from current pigeonhole hg using "make dist" doesn't
include the files doc/man/{reporting-bugs.inc,sed.sh} and fails to
build as a result. Attached patch works for me.
Paul
Fixed:
http://hg.rename-it.nl/dovecot-2.0-pigeonhole/rev/241651833da4
Regards,
Hi,
I'd like to use Global ACLs to limit user's access to individual folders (e.g.
read only).
The dovecot-acl file limiting my user "test":
user=test lr
works fine when I put it into the user's mailbox
/home/vmail/test/Maildir/.Records
but gets ignored in
/etc/dovecot/acls/Records
Bellow is
Patrick Fay put forth on 8/26/2010 10:21 PM:
> Hi,
> I am running dovecot 1.2.11 on mac osx 1.5.8. Everything works
> perfectly with the application-level firewall off, but enabling the
> application firewall prevents dovecot connections. I have tried
> explicitly authorizing dovecot in the f
On 8/24/2010 4:19 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
It depends on your configuration.. The attachment directory is a setting. I was
thinking that it it would typically be the same for all users, so if you have
two filesystems, you'd need to decide which one will have the /attachments
directory.
Dunn
On 8/24/2010 4:35 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On 24.8.2010, at 23.16, Ed W wrote:
At the moment I would claim that you are just automatically generating a very
complicated filename. If you never trust your hash then you might as well
instead simply use one of the existing GUID algorithms, if y
On 27.08.2010 17:16, wrote Jerrale G:
> In the shell:
> ,doveadm(root): Error: User listing returned failure,doveadm: Error:
> Failed to iterate through some users
>
> In the log:
> dovecot: auth: Error: sql: Iterate query failed: Table 'mail.users'
> doesn't exist (using built-in default iterate
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:15:42 +0200, Toorop wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm working on a setup of dovecot 2 + netqmail + vpopmail 5.5 but
> auth doesn't works :(
>
> dovecot -n
> # 2.0.1: /etc/dovecot/dovecot/dovecot.conf
> # OS: Linux 2.6.35.1-rscloud x86_64 Ubuntu 10.04.1 LTS
> auth_debug = yes
> auth_deb
In the shell:
,doveadm(root): Error: User listing returned failure,doveadm: Error:
Failed to iterate through some users
In the log:
dovecot: auth: Error: sql: Iterate query failed: Table 'mail.users'
doesn't exist (using built-in default iterate_query: SELECT username,
domain FROM users)
W
ive added
args = uid=vmail gid=vmail home=/home/MAILBOXES/%u/ mail=/home/MAILBOXES/%u/mail
and it work.
Im not really sure about the hole LDAP thing :)
my conf:
uris = ldaps://ldap.example.org:636
dn = cn=dovecot server,ou=people,ou=Server,dc=example,dc=org
dnpass = hiddenpw
auth_bind = yes
ldap
no idea if it matters but
the static userdb sets only the home=.
is it possible to set home= and mail=
because both souldnt be the same as Timo mentioned a few days ago
2010/8/27 :
> hi..
>
> im just testing 2.0 before upgrading to v1.2 :)
>
> in auth-ldap.conf.ext i found
>
> # If you don't have
hi..
im just testing 2.0 before upgrading to v1.2 :)
in auth-ldap.conf.ext i found
# If you don't have any user-specific settings, you can avoid the userdb LDAP
# lookup by using userdb static instead of userdb ldap, for example:
#
#userdb {
#driver = static
#args = uid=vmail gid=vmail home
Hi,
I'm working on a setup of dovecot 2 + netqmail + vpopmail 5.5 but auth
doesn't works :(
dovecot -n
# 2.0.1: /etc/dovecot/dovecot/dovecot.conf
# OS: Linux 2.6.35.1-rscloud x86_64 Ubuntu 10.04.1 LTS
auth_debug = yes
auth_debug_passwords = yes
auth_mechanisms = plain login cram-md5
auth_verbo
On 2010-08-26 11:18 PM, Blaster wrote:
> Thanks for the tip. I saw the section on converting from uw-imap, but
> it's still not working. I still can not get to my mail folders, other
> than INBOX. I think the problem goes back to Dovecot can't determine
> the home directory?
>
> ug 26 22:08:36
On 27.8.2010, at 5.59, Noel Butler wrote:
> I've asked if it can avoid touching
> the index files before (see a thread as recent as a few weeks back),
You can avoid touching indexes:
protocol lda {
mail_location = maildir:~/Maildir:INDEX=MEMORY
}
But you still have the problem of dovecot-uidl
On 2010-08-26 7:34 PM, Brian Hayden wrote:
> Dovecot makes the sort of thing you're talking about very easy if you
> familiarize yourself with namespaces first. It can overcome most of
> the problems caused by historical poor choices in client
> configuration.
http://wiki2.dovecot.org/Namespaces
Blaster wrote:
> Wiki seems to think you are running an older version and therefore very
> little of it applies.
Are you looking at the wiki for dovecot 1 or 2?
At the very top of the wiki for v1 (http://wiki.dovecot.org), it tells
you about the page for v2 (http://wiki2.dovecot.org/)
--
Best
Noel,
On 8/26/10 11:28 PM, "Noel Butler" wrote:
> I just fail to see why adding more complexity, and essentially making
> $9K load balancers redundant, is the way of the future.
To each their own. If your setup works without it, then fine, don't use
it... but I don't see why you feel the need to
Guys,
We have been trying to establish if there is a way to get some type of
notification from Dovecot when a message is appended to a mailbox or when a
message has its flags updated.
These are the 2 use cases:
A message is appended to the mailbox "/Watch", we want to trigger "processing"
of t
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Brandon Davidson wrote:
> Noel,
>
> On 8/26/10 9:59 PM, "Noel Butler" wrote:
>
> >> I fail to see advantage if anything it add in more point of failure,
> with
> >
> > i agree with this and it is why we dont use it
> >
> > we use dovecots deliver with postfix and
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 08:54 +1000, Edward avanti wrote:
>
> > Halo,
> > Please can you explain why this is advantage over a hardware load
> balancer.
>
>
> it is no advantage over a dedicated hardware solution, but director does
> not do the e
Some interesting reading on SHA256 checksum
http://blogs.sun.com/bonwick/entry/zfs_dedup
http://blogs.sun.com/darren/entry/improving_zfs_dedup_performance_via
31 matches
Mail list logo
