[Dovecot-news] v2.0.beta5 released
http://dovecot.org/releases/2.0/beta/dovecot-2.0.beta5.tar.gz http://dovecot.org/releases/2.0/beta/dovecot-2.0.beta5.tar.gz.sig Sorry for being so quiet recently. Unfortunately I think it's still going to last a while longer. I'll be in Italy for next two weeks and immediately after that I'll move to Portugal. I'll probably write something about that later to blog. I had hoped that this beta5 would be almost the same as RC1, but I didn't have time to put everything there yet, and thought beta4 is way too old already. The few things that should still be done: - Change expire-tool to be a plugin for doveadm expunge command - doveadm mailbox * commands should use UTF-8 for mailbox names, not mUTF-7 (and add -7, -8 parameters to switch between them) - THREAD command seems to be crashing - some other bugfixes Some of the changes since beta4: - default_login_user is now dovenull. You should create this user. - imap, pop3 -u user now does userdb lookup + changes privileges if necessary, so it's much easier to start imap/pop3 session for a specific user from command line - doveadm has all kinds of new commands and changes - PostgreSQL supports now multiple connections to backend. Also supports load-balancing / HA by specifying multiple host parameters. MySQL and PostgreSQL now share the same code for that. - probably lots of other things I can't think of right now. h ___ Dovecot-news mailing list Dovecot-news@dovecot.org http://dovecot.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dovecot-news
Re: [Dovecot] Thunderbird very slow startup, 1.2.11, mbox, postfix local delivery to /var/mail
Greetings Patrick, fellow Postfix user, and Postfix author. Patrick Ben Koetter put forth on 5/8/2010 5:04 PM: * Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com: If this is the case, if I switch from having Postfix do local delivery to /var/mail to having Postfix use dovecot LDA, what other changes would I need http://wiki.dovecot.org/LDA/Postfix to make? Would I still be able to sort new messages with Tbird filter Sure. Tbird filter rules are local, client rules run on your computer and not on the mailserver. I should have worded that question better. What I was trying to ask is that, if using dovecot LDA, if new messages would still be presented to Tbird in the INBOX imap folder. If LDA dropped new messages into a different imap folder then Tbird wouldn't see them in the INBOX, and that's where all my filter rules apply. Looking back this was probably a dumb question. I asked it because I'm totally unfamiliar with LDA. I'll be reading up on it. rules? What directory would dovecot LDA drop the new messages into? Would Dovecot deliver will put messages into the same place where Postfix local puts them now. Got it. That's good to know. I need to make name space changes? I've never actually done anything Nope, deliver replaces Postfix local LDA transparently. Good. Fantastic, actually. manually with name spaces. I let dovecot figure it out automagically. Thanks for the interest in my topic. I know it's not a very interesting one since apparently I'm the only one on the planet experiencing this. Putting 40k+ messages - IIRC you wrote that - into a single mailbox is not unusual allthough I hardly now any postmaster who recommends that. The total is somewhere around there, and growing daily due to list mail. I'm not sure of your definition of single mailbox here. Yes, the messages are all in the same UNIX user account, but the messages are spread across a number of mbox files, not a single file. I have ~12,000 messages in each of two mbox files, ~5,000 in another, a couple with ~3,000, and a number with less than 1,000. Dovecot handles all of these quickly and easily, with low memory consumption. Searching the large mbox files is quick when the squat indexes aren't stale. Mailbox size, individual mbox size, don't seem to be a performance factor. My only performance problem is related to the INBOX, which usually has less than 150 messages in it. Tbird loads those 150-300 headers from the INBOX folder slower than it loads 12,000+ headers from the debian-users folder or spam-l folder. At this point I'm assuming the problem has to lie with Tbird, as dovecot should be performing the same regardless of folder size or location on disk, *UNLESS* dovecot hasn't already indexed /var/mail/%user when the client connects. I don't know how dovecot handles indexing of /var/mail/%user files, or more importantly, I don't know *when* dovecot indexes those files. If they aren't indexed before the client connects and requests the contents of INBOX, I can see there being a performance drop, although I wouldn't think it would be great enough to cause a ~20 second delay for 125 messages or 60 seconds for ~300 messages. Having no index on 40k messages means the mail server needs to scan the directory any time a mail client accesses the mailbox. This takes time and might explain the delay you experience. Whoa. We've had a major disconnect somewhere in the conversation. I'm not lacking indexes on 40k messages. They're all well indexed by dovecot. Some have multiple indexes due to squat. Performance while accessing any of those 40k is fast as lightning. Again, the performance problem I have is _strictly with new messages in the INBOX folder_. More precisely, Tbird pulling the headers for new messages. IFAIK, Tbird only pulls the headers, not the entire message. It only pulls the entire message when you open/access it. Dovecots ability always to provide an up to date if you use its LDA deliver was one of the major reasons to use Dovecot for me. We had a non-Dovecot IMAP server with a load of 60. It went down to 2 the day we began to use Dovecot with deliver AND access to messages became faster. I agree. Dovecot rocks. And it's probably not at fault WRT my current performance issue. I'm just asking the question in the off chance that my performance issue WRT INBOX is due to something I may have screwed up in my dovecot config or setup, or maybe... Timo identified a bug related to processing of mbox files that was to have been fixed in 1.2.11. I don't think my current issue is related. But, I get the feeling that mbox code paths have taken a back seat to maildir and other code paths through the last few release cycles due to the popularity of the latter and the declining popularity of the former. I am one of the users who helped Timo identify that mbox bug merely by observation here. It's always within the realm of possibility that I've run into another less than
[Dovecot] problems implementing dovecot LDA with Postfix
Per the instructions here http://wiki.dovecot.org/LDA and here http://wiki.dovecot.org/LDA/Postfix I set postmaster_address = postmas...@hardwarefreak.com in /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf and mailbox_command = /usr/lib/dovecot/deliver in /etc/postfix/main.cf When I restart dovecot I get this: [07:17:00][r...@greer]/etc/dovecot$ /etc/init.d/dovecot restart Restarting IMAP/POP3 mail server: dovecotError: Error in configuration file /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf line 754: Unknown setting: postmaster_address Fatal: Invalid configuration in /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf failed! And after restarting Postfix and sending a test message from a gmail account I get this in the mail log: May 9 07:26:09 greer postfix/qmgr[13384]: AEE976C32C: from=snugmons...@gmail.com, size=1628, nrcpt=1 (queue active) May 9 07:26:09 greer dovecot: deliver(stan): Fatal: postmaster_address setting not given May 9 07:26:09 greer postfix/local[13392]: AEE976C32C: to=s...@hardwarefreak.com, relay=local, delay=1.4, delays=1.3/0.03/0/0.04, dsn=4.3.0, status=deferred (temporary failure) The server is Debian Lenny 5.0.4 with Postfix 2.5.5 and Dovecot 1.2.11 from Lenny backports. Any ideas? Everything I've found via Google relating to this Dovecot startup error has to do with people converting old dovecot.conf files to a new dovecot version. -- Stan
Re: [Dovecot] problems implementing dovecot LDA with Postfix
Am 09.05.2010 14:43, schrieb Stan Hoeppner:
Per the instructions here http://wiki.dovecot.org/LDA and here
http://wiki.dovecot.org/LDA/Postfix I set
postmaster_address = postmas...@hardwarefreak.com
in /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf
postmaster_address has to be in an protocol lda {}-part:
protocol lda {
postmaster_address = postmas...@hardwarefreak.com
}
best regards,
Anton
--
ADIT Systems
Anton Dollmaier, B.Sc.
Im Moos 22
84323 Massing
Telefon: +49-700-46862348* (Mo-Sa, 10:00-20:00 Uhr)
Telefax: +49-700-32922348*
Twitter: http://twitter.com/ADITSystems
Blog:http://blog.aditsystems.de/
Wiki:https://kunden.aditsystems.de/wiki/
(*: 12ct./Minute aus dem Netz der DTAG, ggf. abweichende
Kosten aus dem Mobilfunknetz)
Re: [Dovecot] problems implementing dovecot LDA with Postfix
Anton Dollmaier put forth on 5/9/2010 7:46 AM:
Am 09.05.2010 14:43, schrieb Stan Hoeppner:
Per the instructions here http://wiki.dovecot.org/LDA and here
http://wiki.dovecot.org/LDA/Postfix I set
postmaster_address = postmas...@hardwarefreak.com
in /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf
postmaster_address has to be in an protocol lda {}-part:
It is. Any other suggestions?
--
Stan
Re: [Dovecot] problems implementing dovecot LDA with Postfix
Am 09.05.2010 um 16:04 schrieb Stan Hoeppner:
postmaster_address has to be in an protocol lda {}-part:
It is. Any other suggestions?
--
Stan
What does 'dovecot -n' list, does it show the LDA section syntactically
correct?
Regards
Thomas
Re: [Dovecot] 2.0 beta4 latest hg: segfault with virtual plugin
On 16.04.2010 19:23, wrote e-frog:
Hello Timo,
latest 2.0 hg version (changeset a6b050cc4a9a) segfaults when selecting
a virtual mailbox.
The attached patch fixes this for me.
diff -rupN dovecot-2.0.beta4/src/plugins/virtual/virtual-config.c
dovecot-2.0.beta4.new/src/plugins/virtual/virtual-config.c
--- dovecot-2.0.beta4/src/plugins/virtual/virtual-config.c 2010-05-09
16:09:39.0 +0200
+++ dovecot-2.0.beta4.new/src/plugins/virtual/virtual-config.c 2010-05-09
16:13:53.0 +0200
@@ -399,10 +399,12 @@ void virtual_config_free(struct virtual_
struct virtual_backend_box *const *bboxes;
unsigned int i, count;
- bboxes = array_get_modifiable(mbox-backend_boxes, count);
- for (i = 0; i count; i++) {
- if (bboxes[i]-search_args != NULL)
- mail_search_args_unref(bboxes[i]-search_args);
+ if (array_is_created(mbox-backend_boxes)) {
+ bboxes = array_get_modifiable(mbox-backend_boxes, count);
+ for (i = 0; i count; i++) {
+ if (bboxes[i]-search_args != NULL)
+ mail_search_args_unref(bboxes[i]-search_args);
+ }
+ array_free(mbox-backend_boxes);
}
- array_free(mbox-backend_boxes);
}
[Dovecot] Reading emails, vmail user mail access problems.
Hello, I have a new installation of Ubuntu 10.04 64bit and all packages are from the Ubuntu repos. dovecot version 1.2.9 My goal is to have a basic email server setup with imap and pop support so imap users can send and receive email for the company. Setup: I have a few users that will be using this mail server so I do not need anything advanced and I am ok with creating a user account with a password and managing email addresses manually. I currently have system accounts for a test user and I have setup virtual mailbox as this mail server will host 2+ domains. Postfix is installed and running, I also confirmed mail flow to this box and from this box is working to the test user created. I can log in with the test username of the system and this is the point at which I have some issues as I am having a permission problem which I think is related to dovecot. What I am not able to do is download emails via imap client, but I can send emails just fine. If I change the permissions of the virtual mailbox to the test user that is logged in to chmod 777 I can download emails, but I can't do this for each new email to that users mailbox. /var/vmail/DOMAIN/USER1/cur/ and anything listed here will be owned by vmail so no other user can read it. (can't download emails) as dovecot seems to be trying to use USER1 as a user to read the files. How can I have dovecot read emails as vmail no matter what user logs in? I have tried many config changes using vmail but its failed so I need some advise. Here is my config: I edited the DOMAIN to hide the real domain used. # 1.2.9: /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf # OS: Linux 2.6.32-21-server x86_64 Ubuntu 10.04 LTS ext4 log_timestamp: %Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S protocols: imap imaps pop3 pop3s disable_plaintext_auth: no login_dir: /var/run/dovecot/login login_executable(default): /usr/lib/dovecot/imap-login login_executable(imap): /usr/lib/dovecot/imap-login login_executable(pop3): /usr/lib/dovecot/pop3-login mail_location: maildir:/var/vmail/DOMAIN/%n/ mbox_write_locks: fcntl dotlock mail_executable(default): /usr/lib/dovecot/imap mail_executable(imap): /usr/lib/dovecot/imap mail_executable(pop3): /usr/lib/dovecot/pop3 mail_plugin_dir(default): /usr/lib/dovecot/modules/imap mail_plugin_dir(imap): /usr/lib/dovecot/modules/imap mail_plugin_dir(pop3): /usr/lib/dovecot/modules/pop3 auth default: passdb: driver: pam userdb: driver: passwd userdb: driver: static args: uid=vmail gid=vmail home=/var/vmail/DOMAIN/%n/ Thank you
Re: [Dovecot] problems implementing dovecot LDA with Postfix
Thomas Leuxner put forth on 5/9/2010 9:19 AM:
Am 09.05.2010 um 16:04 schrieb Stan Hoeppner:
postmaster_address has to be in an protocol lda {}-part:
It is. Any other suggestions?
--
Stan
What does 'dovecot -n' list, does it show the LDA section syntactically
correct?
[10:01:28][r...@greer]/etc/dovecot$ dovecot -n
# 1.2.11: /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf
Error: Error in configuration file /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf line 754:
Unknown setting: postmaster_address
Fatal: Invalid configuration in /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf
Damnit. I found it. It's always a stupid oversight...
I'd forgotten to remove the comment symbols from the top and bottom of the
LDA section. It's easy to forget little things like this when one doesn't
live and breath inside dovecot.conf daily.
#protocol lda {
...
#}
It looks like it's working now:
May 9 10:17:18 greer dovecot: deliver(stan):
msgid=4be6d19e.3070...@lorentz.leidenuniv.nl: saved mail to INBOX
May 9 10:17:18 greer postfix/local[14447]: 0DA0C6C3D2:
to=s...@hardwarefreak.com, relay=local, delay=0.43,
delays=0.38/0.03/0/0.02, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (delivered to command:
/usr/lib/dovecot/deliver)
Thanks for the help guys. If you'd not have kept my nose in dovecot.conf
I'd not have found it.
--
Stan
Re: [Dovecot] v2.0.beta5 released
Timo Sirainen t...@iki.fi writes: [...] - PostgreSQL supports now multiple connections to backend. Also supports load-balancing / HA by specifying multiple host parameters. MySQL and PostgreSQL now share the same code for that. You don't really need to wonder that your release cycles 'get longer' when you do major feature changes to something you consider to be 'beta' (and not alpha) code just because you cannot stand the fact that other people need to write code to deal with problems in code written by you. BTW, there is no need to now start the usual 'unwanted outsiders attack' flamewar since I am not going to receive it.
Re: [Dovecot] v2.0.beta5 released
On 9.5.2010, at 23.03, Rainer Weikusat wrote: - PostgreSQL supports now multiple connections to backend. Also supports load-balancing / HA by specifying multiple host parameters. MySQL and PostgreSQL now share the same code for that. You don't really need to wonder that your release cycles 'get longer' when you do major feature changes to something you consider to be 'beta' (and not alpha) code just because you cannot stand the fact that other people need to write code to deal with problems in code written by you. No, that's not it. The only reason I wrote it was because it was needed by the company that paid me for Dovecot development these recent months. And the reason why I didn't use your code was because I didn't like the idea of having to maintain two separate implementations of SQL load balancer. I don't have a problem with adding other peoples' code, as long as it solves the problem the right way (and code duplication isn't the right way).
Re: [Dovecot] v2.0.beta5 released
please keep your childish immature sour grapes dummy spits off this list On Sun, 2010-05-09 at 22:03 +0200, Rainer Weikusat wrote: You don't really need to wonder that your release cycles 'get longer' when you do major feature changes to something you consider to be 'beta' (and not alpha) code just because you cannot stand the fact that other people need to write code to deal with problems in code written by you. BTW, there is no need to now start the usual 'unwanted outsiders attack' flamewar since I am not going to receive it.
