Re: librmb: Mail storage on RADOS with Dovecot

2017-09-23 Thread Timo Sirainen 
On 22 Sep 2017, at 14.18, mj  wrote:
> First, the Github link:
> https://github.com/ceph-dovecot/dovecot-ceph-plugin
> 
> I am not going to repeat everything which is on Github, put a short summary:
> 
> - CephFS is used for storing Mailbox Indexes
> - E-Mails are stored directly as RADOS objects
> - It's a Dovecot plugin
> 
> We would like everybody to test librmb and report back issues on Github so 
> that further development can be done.
> 
> It's not finalized yet, but all the help is welcome to make librmb the best 
> solution for storing your e-mails on Ceph with Dovecot.

It would be have been nicer if RADOS support was implemented as lib-fs driver, 
and the fs-API had been used all over the place elsewhere. So 1) 
LibRadosMailBox wouldn't have been relying so much on RADOS specifically and 2) 
fs-rados could have been used for other purposes. There are already fs-dict and 
dict-fs drivers, so the RADOS dict driver may not have been necessary to 
implement if fs-rados was implemented instead (although I didn't check it 
closely enough to verify). (We've had fs-rados on our TODO list for a while 
also.)

BTW. We've also been planning on open sourcing some of the obox pieces, mainly 
fs-drivers (e.g. fs-s3). The obox format maybe too, but without the "metacache" 
piece. The current obox code is a bit too much married into the metacache 
though to make open sourcing it easy. (The metacache is about storing the 
Dovecot index files in object storage and efficiently caching them on local 
filesystem, which isn't planned to be open sourced in near future. That's 
pretty much the only difficult piece of the obox plugin, with Cassandra 
integration coming as a good second. I wish there had been a better/easier 
geo-distributed key-value database to use - tombstones are annoyingly 
troublesome.)

And using rmb-mailbox format, my main worries would be:
 * doesn't store index files (= message flags) - not necessarily a problem, as 
long as you don't want geo-replication
 * index corruption means rebuilding them, which means rescanning list of mail 
files, which means rescanning the whole RADOS namespace, which practically 
means  rescanning the RADOS pool. That most likely is a very very slow 
operation, which you want to avoid unless it's absolutely necessary. Need to be 
very careful to avoid that happening, and in general to avoid losing mails in 
case of crashes or other bugs.
 * I think copying/moving mails physically copies the full data on disk
 * Each IMAP/POP3/LMTP/etc process connects to RADOS separately from each 
others - some connection pooling would likely help here

Re: Different users having same home/mail_location?

2017-09-23 Thread Tapio Sokura 

Hello Peter,

I'm using a virtual users model in dovecot where all the mail is stored 
under the same OS user account anyway, so file/dir permissions won't be 
a problem. The system users I was referring to are actually completely 
separate user accounts at the moment with their own uid/gid (and 
passwordless sudo between them), but I guess they could use same uid/gid 
and just have separate entries in passwd/shadow.


Anyway at the moment I'm not concerned about getting the authentication 
part working, but whether there's something in dovecot that will bite my 
sitting muscles if mail_location is the same for two users. I'm aware of 
the shared folders functionality mentioned by Marcus and that will 
probably be my fallback, if sharing a mail_location is not viable. Same 
mail_location would just be simpler.


  Tapio

On 24.9.2017 0:34, Peter Chiochetti wrote:

Hello Tapia,

You are going to great lengths :) I assume, that PAM working means, 
"user" and "otheruser" are the names of system-users with the same uid, 
home etc? Then I do not see, why dovecot, all defaults and 
authenticating against PAM won't work out of the box, shouldn't it?


Peter

Am 2017-09-23 um 22:08 schrieb Tapio Sokura:

Hello,

Will I be breaking something if I have two users share the same home 
and/or mail_location (maildir format) in dovecot? Mail will only be 
delivered to the primary user, the other would be used every now and 
then to login via imap (webmail).


This would be on a CentOS 7 box running dovecot from the packaging 
system, i.e. dovecot-2.2.10-8.el7 currently. The reason I'd like to do 
this is to have two ways to login to the same mailbox, one using 
username + password and the other otherusername + otherpassword + 
otp-token. Basically this "otherusername" would be for cases where I 
don't trust the client computer to not have a keylogger etc badness in 
it, but still need to see my mail.


I have this kind of a dual-login setup via PAM for regular system user 
authentication and it's working ok. I'm just wondering about the 
dovecot part, whether dovecot will do Unexpected Things if more than 
one user have the same home and mail_location? If it makes any 
difference, the users can have separate homes, but the mailbox should 
be the same for usability.


   Tapio

Re: Different users having same home/mail_location?

2017-09-23 Thread Peter Chiochetti 

Hello Tapia,

You are going to great lengths :) I assume, that PAM working means, 
"user" and "otheruser" are the names of system-users with the same uid, 
home etc? Then I do not see, why dovecot, all defaults and 
authenticating against PAM won't work out of the box, shouldn't it?


Peter

Am 2017-09-23 um 22:08 schrieb Tapio Sokura:

Hello,

Will I be breaking something if I have two users share the same home 
and/or mail_location (maildir format) in dovecot? Mail will only be 
delivered to the primary user, the other would be used every now and 
then to login via imap (webmail).


This would be on a CentOS 7 box running dovecot from the packaging 
system, i.e. dovecot-2.2.10-8.el7 currently. The reason I'd like to do 
this is to have two ways to login to the same mailbox, one using 
username + password and the other otherusername + otherpassword + 
otp-token. Basically this "otherusername" would be for cases where I 
don't trust the client computer to not have a keylogger etc badness in 
it, but still need to see my mail.


I have this kind of a dual-login setup via PAM for regular system user 
authentication and it's working ok. I'm just wondering about the dovecot 
part, whether dovecot will do Unexpected Things if more than one user 
have the same home and mail_location? If it makes any difference, the 
users can have separate homes, but the mailbox should be the same for 
usability.


   Tapio

Re: Different users having same home/mail_location?

2017-09-23 Thread Marcus Rueckert 
On 2017-09-23 20:08:35 +, Tapio Sokura wrote:
> Will I be breaking something if I have two users share the same home and/or
> mail_location (maildir format) in dovecot? Mail will only be delivered to
> the primary user, the other would be used every now and then to login via
> imap (webmail).
> 
> This would be on a CentOS 7 box running dovecot from the packaging system,
> i.e. dovecot-2.2.10-8.el7 currently. The reason I'd like to do this is to
> have two ways to login to the same mailbox, one using username + password
> and the other otherusername + otherpassword + otp-token. Basically this
> "otherusername" would be for cases where I don't trust the client computer
> to not have a keylogger etc badness in it, but still need to see my mail.
> 
> I have this kind of a dual-login setup via PAM for regular system user
> authentication and it's working ok. I'm just wondering about the dovecot
> part, whether dovecot will do Unexpected Things if more than one user have
> the same home and mail_location? If it makes any difference, the users can
> have separate homes, but the mailbox should be the same for usability.

why not just a shared folder?

-- 
   openSUSE - SUSE Linux is my linux
   openSUSE is good for you
   www.opensuse.org

Different users having same home/mail_location?

2017-09-23 Thread Tapio Sokura 

Hello,

Will I be breaking something if I have two users share the same home 
and/or mail_location (maildir format) in dovecot? Mail will only be 
delivered to the primary user, the other would be used every now and 
then to login via imap (webmail).


This would be on a CentOS 7 box running dovecot from the packaging 
system, i.e. dovecot-2.2.10-8.el7 currently. The reason I'd like to do 
this is to have two ways to login to the same mailbox, one using 
username + password and the other otherusername + otherpassword + 
otp-token. Basically this "otherusername" would be for cases where I 
don't trust the client computer to not have a keylogger etc badness in 
it, but still need to see my mail.


I have this kind of a dual-login setup via PAM for regular system user 
authentication and it's working ok. I'm just wondering about the dovecot 
part, whether dovecot will do Unexpected Things if more than one user 
have the same home and mail_location? If it makes any difference, the 
users can have separate homes, but the mailbox should be the same for 
usability.


  Tapio

Fwd: Bug#876364: dovecot-sieve: Just discovered imap_sieve/sieve_imapsieve is not set up to work with virtual mailboxes.

2017-09-23 Thread Thurgood Angelou 
Hi... The output of my doveconf -n is as folllows.

# 2.2.32 (dfbe293d4): /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf
# Pigeonhole version 0.4.20 (7cd71ba)
doveconf: Warning: /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf line 105: Global setting
mail_plugins won't change the setting inside an earlier filter at
/etc/dovecot/conf.d/15-lda.conf line 47 (if this is intentional, avoid this
warning by moving the global setting before /etc/dovecot/conf.d/15-lda.conf
line 47)
doveconf: Warning: /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf line 105: Global setting
mail_plugins won't change the setting inside an earlier filter at
/etc/dovecot/conf.d/15-lda.conf line 47 (if this is intentional, avoid this
warning by moving the global setting before /etc/dovecot/conf.d/15-lda.conf
line 47)
# OS: Linux 3.16.0-4-amd64 x86_64 Debian 8.2 ext4
auth_default_realm = othersider92.com
auth_mechanisms = plain login
first_valid_uid = 100
log_path = /var/log/dovecot.log
mail_location = maildir:/var/mail/%d/%n
mail_plugins = " virtual"
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 index ihave
duplicate mime foreverypart extracttext imapsieve vnd.dovecot.imapsieve
namespace inbox {
  inbox = yes
  location =
  mailbox Drafts {
auto = create
special_use = \Drafts
  }
  mailbox Junk {
auto = create
autoexpunge = 1 weeks
special_use = \Junk
  }
  mailbox Promotions {
auto = subscribe
  }
  mailbox Sent {
auto = create
special_use = \Sent
  }
  mailbox Trash {
auto = create
autoexpunge = 30 days
special_use = \Trash
  }
  prefix =
  separator = /
  type = private
}
namespace virtual {
  disabled = yes
  hidden = yes
  list = no
  location = virtual:/var/mail/virtual
  prefix = virtual/
  separator = /
  type = private
}
passdb {
  args = /etc/dovecot/dovecot-sql.conf.ext
  driver = sql
}
plugin {
  imapsieve_mailbox1_before = file:/etc/sieve/report-spam.sieve
  imapsieve_mailbox1_causes = COPY
  imapsieve_mailbox1_name = Junk
  imapsieve_mailbox2_before = file:/etc/sieve/report-ham.sieve
  imapsieve_mailbox2_causes = COPY
  imapsieve_mailbox2_from = Junk
  imapsieve_mailbox2_name = *
  imapsieve_mailbox3_before = file:/etc/sieve/report-spam-promo.sieve
  imapsieve_mailbox3_causes = COPY
  imapsieve_mailbox3_name = Promotions
  imapsieve_mailbox4_before = file:/etc/sieve/report-ham-promo.sieve
  imapsieve_mailbox4_causes = COPY
  imapsieve_mailbox4_from = Promotions
  imapsieve_mailbox4_name = *
  sieve = file:~/sieve;active=~/.dovecot.sieve
  sieve_after = /etc/sieve/conf.d/after
  sieve_before = /etc/sieve/conf.d/before
  sieve_global_extensions = +editheader +vnd.dovecot.pipe
  sieve_pipe_bin_dir = /usr/local/bin
  sieve_plugins = sieve_extprograms sieve_imapsieve
}
protocols = imap lmtp
service auth-worker {
  user = vmail
}
service auth {
  unix_listener /var/spool/postfix/private/auth {
group = postfix
mode = 0666
user = postfix
  }
  unix_listener auth-userdb {
mode = 0600
user = vmail
  }
  user = dovecot
}
service imap-login {
  inet_listener imap {
port = 0
  }
  inet_listener imaps {
port = 993
ssl = yes
  }
}
service lmtp {
  unix_listener /var/spool/postfix/private/dovecot-lmtp {
group = postfix
mode = 0600
user = postfix
  }
}
ssl = required
ssl_cert = 
wrote:

> Control: tags -1 + moreinfo upstream
>
> [Forwarding this to the Dovecot mailing list, just in case someone can
> help]
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the report! See my comments inline.
>
> On 11:56 Thu 21 Sep , Thurgood Angelou wrote:
> > Package: dovecot-core
> > Version: 1:2.2.32-2
> >
> > I've just discovered a bug where the sieve plugin (especially IMAP)
> > will not work with a virtual mailbox. I recently found this out when
> > testing a virtual mailbox setup and I use imap_sieve for SPAM
> > filtering so to lose that would be painful.
> >
> > This is what is reported in dovecot's debug log...
> >
> > Sep 21 10:53:01 imap(perso...@othersider92.com): Panic: file
> mail-index-map.c: line 549 (mail_index_map_lookup_seq_range): assertion
> failed: (first_uid > 0)
> > Sep 21 10:53:01 imap(perso...@othersider92.com): Error: Raw backtrace:
> /usr/lib/dovecot/libdovecot.so.0(+0x9f0a2) [0x7f4226fd50a2] ->
> /usr/lib/dovecot/libdovecot.so.0(+0x9f19a) [0x7f4226fd519a] ->
> /usr/lib/dovecot/libdovecot.so.0(i_fatal+0) [0x7f4226f65cf8] ->
> /usr/lib/dovecot/libdovecot-storage.so.0(mail_index_map_lookup_seq_range+0x120)
> [0x7f422733dae0] -> /usr/lib/dovecot/libdovecot-storage.so.0(+0xe8d1d)
> [0x7f422734cd1d] -> /usr/lib/dovecot/libdovecot-st
> orage.so.0(mail_index_lookup_seq+0xf) [0x7f4227350e9f] ->
> /usr/lib/dovecot/modules/lib20_virtual_plugin.so(+0x82aa)
> [0x7f422678a2aa] -> 
> /usr/lib/dovecot/modules/lib95_imap_sieve_plugin.so(+0x708c)
> [0x7f422657d08c] -> /usr/lib/dovecot/libdovecot-st
>

Re: Sieve vacation and srs

2017-09-23 Thread Stephan Bosch 
Op 9/22/2017 om 10:32 PM schreef azu...@pobox.sk:
> Hi,
>
> is this already fixed?
>
> https://www.dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/2017-July/108688.html

Yes:

https://github.com/dovecot/pigeonhole/commit/70c218b5627b90b071c7196d5c6ee2063cc3515f

The next release will include it.

Regards,

Stephan.