Re: v2.2.32 release candidate 2 released

On 23.08.2017 03:17, Marcus Rueckert wrote: > On 2017-08-22 21:50:52 +0200, Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz wrote: >>> A couple of changes since rc1: >>> >>> + Added apparmor plugin. See https://wiki2.dovecot.org/Plugins/Apparmor >> Oh so no way to set separate hat for each user? (based on sql query for

Re: pop 110/995, imap 143/993 ?

On 23/08/17 11:13, Joseph Tam wrote: > You don't need plaintext to use CRAM-MD5: there's no problem have *both* > CRAM-MD5 and SSL (it's overkill, but works). And mail data is worth > protecting too. The problem is, as I already pointed out, that using CRAM-MD5 or any other form of

Re: v2.2.32 release candidate 2 released

On 2017-08-22 21:50:52 +0200, Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz wrote: > > A couple of changes since rc1: > > > > + Added apparmor plugin. See https://wiki2.dovecot.org/Plugins/Apparmor > > Oh so no way to set separate hat for each user? (based on sql query for > example etc) have your userdb query return

Re: pop 110/995, imap 143/993 ?

Robert Wolf wrote: else (NOT LOCALHOST) and you can see it says LOGINDISABLED unless you have enabled something like cram-md5. Hi, exactly, this is the reason, why plain-text is still needed. You don't need encryption for authentication, if you have secure authentication. Without knowing

Re: user data transfer when migrating to new server

Hi, I did with imapsync for one server but I had all the login / passwords. The following I did with rsync transfer from one server to another, but the mails where stored in files. Can't tell if you use any other method of mail storage. And if someone knows a trick about not redownloading the

user data transfer when migrating to new server

I;m setting up new server, what are the options for transferring user's mail ? I've tried imapsync, that seems to work well, but, what options do I have for doing accounts or domains where I don't know user's password ? last time I've done, some users had lengthy period of re downloading 'old'

Re: pop 110/995, imap 143/993 ?

On 22/08/17 20:07, Robert Wolf wrote: > On Tue, 22 Aug 2017, Aki Tuomi wrote: > >> else (NOT LOCALHOST) and you can see it says LOGINDISABLED unless you >> have enabled something like cram-md5. > > exactly, this is the reason, why plain-text is still needed. You don't need > encryption for

Re: pop 110/995, imap 143/993 ?

On 22/08/17 18:24, Aki Tuomi wrote: > Dovecot, by default, requires STARTTLS before accepting plaintext > authentication when SSL is configured and you are not connecting from > localhost. You can verify this by telnetting to port 143 from somewhere > else (NOT LOCALHOST) and you can see it says

Re: v2.2.32 release candidate 2 released

On Tuesday 22 of August 2017, Timo Sirainen wrote: > https://dovecot.org/releases/2.2/rc/dovecot-2.2.32.rc2.tar.gz > https://dovecot.org/releases/2.2/rc/dovecot-2.2.32.rc2.tar.gz.sig > > A couple of changes since rc1: > > + Added apparmor plugin. See https://wiki2.dovecot.org/Plugins/Apparmor

unexpected delivery location

Hi, We're running dovecot 2.2.13, virtual users, with postfix. We have an olddomain and a new domainname. To 'translate' *@olddomain into *@newdomain, I have configured: cat /etc/postfix/canonical @olddomain.com @newdomain.com While this seems to work, lately we have noticed that

Error: mdbox .../storage: Duplicate GUID

Hi! When I force-resync a mailbox of mine, I see following output: # doveadm force-resync -u $USER $PATH doveadm($USER): Warning: mdbox .../storage: Inconsistency in map index ($X,$Y2 != $X,$Y2) doveadm($USER): Warning: fscking index file .../storage/dovecot.map.index doveadm($USER): Warning:

Re: store into mailbox 'Junk' aborted

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 22 Aug 2017, kenneth topp wrote: Aug 21 19:43:59 lmtp(toppk): Debug: $MAILDIR/Junk: Mailbox opened because: lib-lda delivery sieve: info: started log at Aug 21 19:43:59. error: msgid=: failed to store into

Re: LMTP and Postfix

> I am setting up a new system that will be using Dovecot with Postifx. I am > planning on using LMTP. I read the wiki and and found the > settings I need to make in Dovecot and the Postfix main.cf file. However, > I > saw nothing about the Postfix master.cf file. Do I need to make and > changes

Re: store into mailbox 'Junk' aborted

> > > Am 22. August 2017 02:29:30 MESZ schrieb kenneth topp : >>Hi, >> >>I've just switch from procmail to pigeonhole, and I'm seeing an issue >>(twice in six hours). >> >>I have spamassisn running via postfix milter, and dropping off via >>main.cf >>"mailbox_transport =

v2.2.32 release candidate 2 released

https://dovecot.org/releases/2.2/rc/dovecot-2.2.32.rc2.tar.gz https://dovecot.org/releases/2.2/rc/dovecot-2.2.32.rc2.tar.gz.sig A couple of changes since rc1: + Added apparmor plugin. See https://wiki2.dovecot.org/Plugins/Apparmor - director: v2.2.31 caused rapid reconnection loops to

Disconnected in APPEND depends on service_count?

Hello, we have quite odd behaviour of dovecot under new OS. We use dovecot 2.2.18 for years under Ubuntu12 and Ubuntu14. Now we use Ubuntu16 and notice some strange errors. dovecot 2.2.18 is rather old, but runs reliable and we dont need newest features, so we packaged it again on Ubuntu16.

Re: imapsieve: failed to read mailbox attribute

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 01:55:45PM +0300, Aki Tuomi wrote: On 22.08.2017 13:37, Darac Marjal wrote: Hello all, Hopefully this is something fairly simple. I've been trying to set up the Sieve Antispam system as detailed at https://wiki2.dovecot.org/HowTo/AntispamWithSieve, but at the moment,

Re: imapsieve: failed to read mailbox attribute

On 22.08.2017 13:37, Darac Marjal wrote: > Hello all, > > Hopefully this is something fairly simple. > > I've been trying to set up the Sieve Antispam system as detailed at > https://wiki2.dovecot.org/HowTo/AntispamWithSieve, but at the moment, > whenever I change mailboxes I get the following

Re: pop 110/995, imap 143/993 ?

On Tue, 22 Aug 2017, Ivan Warren wrote: > Le 8/22/2017 à 10:03 AM, Robert Wolf a écrit : > > > > WRONG!!! The email is stored plain-text on the first server and then it can > > be > > sent to other few MX servers over plain-text connection. I.e. encrypted > > connection does not protect emails,

Re: LMTP and Postfix

On 22.08.2017 12:10, Jerry wrote: > I saw nothing about the Postfix master.cf file. Do I need to make > and changes to it also? No need. Assuming that you use a socket, the following combination should suffice: # Dovecot service lmtp { unix_listener

imapsieve: failed to read mailbox attribute

Hello all, Hopefully this is something fairly simple. I've been trying to set up the Sieve Antispam system as detailed at https://wiki2.dovecot.org/HowTo/AntispamWithSieve, but at the moment, whenever I change mailboxes I get the following message logged: Aug 22 09:30:45 remy dovecot:

LMTP and Postfix

I am setting up a new system that will be using Dovecot with Postifx. I am planning on using LMTP. I read the wiki and and found the settings I need to make in Dovecot and the Postfix main.cf file. However, I saw nothing about the Postfix master.cf file. Do I need to make and changes to it also?

Re: pop 110/995, imap 143/993 ?

On Tue, 22 Aug 2017, Aki Tuomi wrote: > else (NOT LOCALHOST) and you can see it says LOGINDISABLED unless you > have enabled something like cram-md5. Hi, exactly, this is the reason, why plain-text is still needed. You don't need encryption for authentication, if you have secure

Re: pop 110/995, imap 143/993 ?

On Mon, 21 Aug 2017, Gary wrote: > If I read this correctly, starttls will fail due to the MITM attack. That is > the client knows security has been compromised. Using SSL/TLS, the MITM can > use SSL stripping. Since most Postifx conf use "may" for security, the > message would go though

Re: Re: pop 110/995, imap 143/993 ?

On 08/22/2017 12:42 AM, Gary wrote: > If I read this correctly, starttls will fail due to the MITM attack. That > is the client knows security has been compromised. [...] Since most Postifx > conf use "may" for security, the message would go though unencrypted. > Correct??? Yup. FWIW, one

Re: pop 110/995, imap 143/993 ?

On 22/08/17 01:56, Peter wrote: Lest anyone think STARTTLS MITM doesn't happen, https://threatpost.com/eff-calls-out-isps-modifying-starttls-encryption-commands/109325/3/ Right, the attack does happen, but it can be prevented by properly configuring the server and client. Not only for

Re: pop 110/995, imap 143/993 ?

On 22.08.2017 03:56, Peter wrote: >>> Lest anyone think STARTTLS MITM doesn't happen, >>> >>> https://threatpost.com/eff-calls-out-isps-modifying-starttls-encryption-commands/109325/3/ > Right, the attack does happen, but it can be prevented by properly > configuring the server and client.