On 03/20/2010 09:16 AM, Jan Marc Hoffmann wrote:
The problem seems to be in the usermap related code.
http://git.dbmail.eu/cgit/cgit.cgi/paul/dbmail/commit/?id=0c08dd0a56d7326b99b19af2a95b3b5cacf55524
This function causes the problem. The stack smash isn't fixed in trunk.
I'd say it's
On 03/25/2010 02:51 AM, Paul J Stevens wrote:
Could someone please file a bug for this one, so I won't forget to deal
with this when I get around to it. Thanks.
Bug 842 filed based on Jan Marc Hoffmann's original report.
___
DBmail mailing list
On 02/01/2010 01:15 AM, Paul J Stevens wrote:
Does this problem bite you? If so, please sent me a message that
triggers it.
Not at this time. I was researching pushing an updated dbmail into
Fedora but this caught my attention and looked like a good enough reason
to hold back and wait for a
On 01/25/2010 05:11 AM, Paul J Stevens wrote:
Ok, that narrows down the changes that may have introduced this problem.
I'm on it.
Have you committed a patch for this yet? If so, which one fixes this issue?
___
DBmail mailing list
DBmail@dbmail.org
Paul Stevens wrote:
Is anyone using gmime 2.4x with dbmail, or is dbmail ready for it?
I'm not. Should be safe though.
Hi Paul,
This is what I get when I try to compile 2.3.5 with gmime-2.4.
gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -I.. -O2 -g -pipe -Wall
-Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions
umask wrote:
Bernard, how I can get stacktrace?
In my case dbmail-imapd receive SIGHUP which send logrotate at 04:10 AM every
week.
Run it under a debugger (gdb). If it terminates abnormally, type 'bt'
in the debugger to get the trace.
If it exits normally, then we have other issues :)
umask wrote:
We're uging DBMail 2.2.5 from EPEL (Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux by
RedHat/Fedora Project) -
http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/epel/5/i386/repoview/dbmail.html .
Sources of dbmail from EPEL contains next patch:
begin patch
[patch deleted]
Alan Hicks wrote:
Bernard Johnson wrote:
Bernard Johnson wrote:
I (and other people I know) have been using VersaMail on a Treo with
dbmail. For the past year (on different versions of VersaMail and
different versions of dbmail), things have worked great.
Then, a few weeks ago, when trying
Bernard Johnson wrote:
I (and other people I know) have been using VersaMail on a Treo with
dbmail. For the past year (on different versions of VersaMail and
different versions of dbmail), things have worked great.
Then, a few weeks ago, when trying to synchronize with the IMAP server,
I
I (and other people I know) have been using VersaMail on a Treo with
dbmail. For the past year (on different versions of VersaMail and
different versions of dbmail), things have worked great.
Then, a few weeks ago, when trying to synchronize with the IMAP server,
I get a Getting Message x of y
Bernard Johnson wrote:
Paul J Stevens wrote:
Seems like a bug. I'm removing the umask call.
I would think you want the logs written as 0600 since they may have
sensitive data from the logs.
Bernard Johnson wrote:
(dbmail 2.2.2)
In server.c, line 450 you set the umask to 0
Paul
I think there is still one of these:
Error error [Success] on write-stream
lurking in the code. I got one today with the 2.2.2 code.
Paul J Stevens wrote:
Bernard Johnson wrote:
Aaron Stone wrote:
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 09:10 +0100, Paul J Stevens wrote:
Bernard Johnson wrote
Just a FYI
I built and pushed the dbmail package to Fedora Extras 5 6, and what
will become Fedora 7 when it's released.
I also intend to push it to what will become the RHEL/CentOS 5 EPEL
(Fedora Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux) repository soon.
Unfortunately, I will not be able to build
(dbmail 2.2.2)
In server.c, line 450 you set the umask to 0. This allows the log files
to be r/w by anyone. Was that intended?
___
Dbmail-dev mailing list
Dbmail-dev@dbmail.org
http://twister.fastxs.net/mailman/listinfo/dbmail-dev
Curtis Maurand wrote:
I'm interested.
Bernard Johnson wrote:
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.mail.imap.dbmail/6652
I only made modifications that work with MySQL though.
Atet Sugiharto wrote:
I have 3 domain in my DBMail and every domain have it's own administrator
person. I would
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.mail.imap.dbmail/6652
I only made modifications that work with MySQL though.
Atet Sugiharto wrote:
I have 3 domain in my DBMail and every domain have it's own administrator
person. I would like each person could manage their own domain securely.
Is there any
Bernard Johnson wrote:
Has anyone seen this before? Any idea what triggers it? Is it a bug or
a database corruption?
What I see is that the server suddenly becomes very slow, and new lmtpd
imap, etc connections either don't get greetings or they are very slow.
Looking into the logs
Bernard Johnson wrote:
InnoDB: Your buffer pool size is 8 MB. Maybe you should make
InnoDB: the buffer pool bigger?
And yes, I did notice this part, but before I upped the buffer pool, I
wanted to make sure I wasn't hiding some bug with transactions.
If the default buffer pool size
Justin McAleer wrote:
The buffer pool should basically be set to as high as your system can
afford, more or less. The example my.cnf files all have Set buffer pool
size to 50-80% of your computer's memory as a comment. That's actually
the most crucial InnoDB tuning adjustment you can make.
Aaron Stone wrote:
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 09:10 +0100, Paul J Stevens wrote:
Bernard Johnson wrote:
Is the other Error error, incomplete session anything to worry about?
It's the most frequent.
Not to worry. It's a pop client hanging up without quiting.
Perhaps we should change
I seem to get quite a few of these. Are they important? They aren't
very informative.
(about 1 every 5 mintues)
Error write to client socket failed
(about 1 every minute)
Error error, incomplete session
Isn't Error error a little redundant :)
have been removed already
- Original Message - From: Bernard Johnson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dbmail@dbmail.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 9:22 AM
Subject: [Dbmail] dbmail.err messages
I seem to get quite a few of these. Are they important? They aren't
very informative.
(about 1
Has anyone seen this before? Any idea what triggers it? Is it a bug or
a database corruption?
What I see is that the server suddenly becomes very slow, and new lmtpd
imap, etc connections either don't get greetings or they are very slow.
Looking into the logs give a bunch of messages
Paul J Stevens wrote:
The *only* reason for inclusion of modules/.libs is facilitating
developement. It could easily be (de)activated with an #ifdef.
I understood that - I was just pointing out that it was not disabled in
the distribution tarball by default, which could lead to some ill
Lars Kneschke wrote:
Bernard Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
There seems to be two types of catchall aliases: domains (@domain) and
local parts (user@).
Is there anyway to map something like:
@example1.com - @example2.com
such that:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL
Aaron Stone wrote:
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006, Marc Dirix [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
You can use a forward.
dmail-users -x @example1.com -t @example2.com
All mail for @example1.com gets forwarded tot @example2.com.
Does this work!? I've been thinking through the code all morning, and I
just
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006, Bernard Johnson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
What I get is that the lmtp process connects to the lmtpd
daemon. Something happens (haven't bothered to get a trace debug yet)
and the connection is dropped and postfix marks it as delivery
temporarily suspended to 127.0.0.1[127.0.0.1
Isn't it a little of a security concern that dbmail-* loads code from
relative paths? I guess that I wouldn't be too concerned about imapd,
pop3d, lmtpd, or timsieved, since I more or less never run them except
via init scripts, so the working directory is set everytime.
But for something like
Aaron Stone wrote:
None of the binaries are setuid/setgid, so there's no risk of running code
at a privilege level different than any other code that the logged-in user
is allowed to run.
You do make a good point that a sysadmin should be aware of -- a user
could install a trojan module
A while back, I submitted dbmail/libsieve to Fedora-Extras for package
review and inclusion. If you're interested in see these in more
wide-spread use, or you run Fedora (*) and want to see packages more
readily available, download the srpms located in the bug and make
appropriate comments.
I
Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
I'm not involved so I can't sponsor, but I will say kudos to you for
working on this, I will be very happy when I don't have to hand compile
DBMail for CentOS anymore.
If you're running 4.x, you might be interested in:
I'm in a situation where a particular users mail was deleted from dbmail
(not just status deleted, but the entire account, mailboxes,
messages, etc were removed). Now I need to recover these from a tape
backup and put the mail back in the users (recreated) account.
I'm having the entire dbmail
]
dbmysql.c,db_query(+286): query [INSERT INTO dbmail_headervalue
(headername_id, physmessage_id, headervalue) VALUES (3,69220,'Bernard
Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]')]
Nov 27 17:00:20 ginger dbmail/lmtpd[3612]: Debug:[sql]
dbmysql.c,db_query(+286): query [SELECT id FROM dbmail_headername WHERE
Aaron Stone wrote:
The first delivery to useridnr 16 succeeds according to these logs. But
there appears to be a second alias for [EMAIL PROTECTED] that resolves
to useridnr 0. This fails and causes the address to return a failure.
Take a look in your dbmail_aliases table to see if you can
Bernard Johnson wrote:
I found a deliver_to of '' for this alias, which I deleted. Funny thing
is this worked with 2.0.10.
And when I say worked I mean didn't complain, as it was certainly a
configuration error.
Thanks for the help.
If anyone is interested, I've made changes to Postfix.Admin
(http://high5.net/postfixadmin/) to make it work on top of a dbmail
database.
This gives three levels of access to your dbmail system:
User - ability to change mail forwarding, vacation auto-responder, and
personal password
Domain
Thanks to Paul and Aaron for providing both trunk and release branch fixes.
Paul J Stevens wrote:
Christian G. Warden wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 07:01:09PM -0700, Bernard Johnson wrote:
Would anyone like to quote me a price for fixing this bug? I need a
patch against 2.0.4. It should
Would anyone like to quote me a price for fixing this bug? I need a
patch against 2.0.4. It should be a simple fix.
Ultimately, the patch should be of quality to be applied to the dbmail
code tree.
http://www.dbmail.org/mantis/bug_view_advanced_page.php?bug_id=145
Yes. I'm not sure why you would not want to.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--
aaron - 12-Jan-05 19:41 CET
--
What the issue here? I don't believe that the
I have seen this behaviour on 2.01 (but not on 2.02 or 2.03). I was
never able to narrow it down much since rarely did I try to start/top
the daemons once they were running, but, on occasion, lmtpd would become
an un-killable zombie that required a reboot of the machine.
I am using custom
When you get a patch for it, let me know and I can apply it to my 2.0.3
that I'm running and make sure it's ok.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A BUGNOTE has been added to this bug.
==
unlikely.
The fact that you're on 2.0.x means it's not a gmime issue, but it also
means this bug may well affect many other users.
Anyone care to confirm or disprove this one, please?
Bernard Johnson wrote:
Paul J Stevens wrote:
Bernard,
Are you running 2.0.x or are you using a 2.1.0 cvs
unlikely.
The fact that you're on 2.0.x means it's not a gmime issue, but it also
means this bug may well affect many other users.
Anyone care to confirm or disprove this one, please?
Bernard Johnson wrote:
Paul J Stevens wrote:
Bernard,
Are you running 2.0.x or are you using a 2.1.0 cvs
Paul J Stevens wrote:
Bernard,
Are you running 2.0.x or are you using a 2.1.0 cvs snapshot?
Bernard Johnson wrote:
I'm trying to verify the expected bahaviour of dbmail in respect to
return-path headers.
My current setup is
postfix-amavis-spamassassin-postfix-tmda-postfix-dbmail-lmtp
many other users.
Anyone care to confirm or disprove this one, please?
Bernard Johnson wrote:
Paul J Stevens wrote:
Bernard,
Are you running 2.0.x or are you using a 2.1.0 cvs snapshot?
Bernard Johnson wrote:
I'm trying to verify the expected bahaviour of dbmail in respect to
return-path
I'm trying to verify the expected bahaviour of dbmail in respect to
return-path headers.
My current setup is
postfix-amavis-spamassassin-postfix-tmda-postfix-dbmail-lmtp and
then I pickup the mail with Mozilla Thunderbird via imap.
I'm fairly certain that the return-path header is intact
Aaron Stone wrote:
Paul J Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
No worries, all sorted out now. I think we're clear for 2.0.1 at this
point. I've found the latest CVS to be very stable (with the exception of
this bug) and much faster, especially for searching. Great work! So...
Ilja, you around?
Seeing that mysql 4.1.7 is now GA, I started looking into upgrading a
couple of servers. I took some time to read through the release notes
(http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/Upgrading-from-4.0.html), and I found
two things that looked like they might cause some fits with dbmail 2.0.0.
Can
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 19:32:32 +0400, Mikhail Ramendik wrote:
This needs a change in dbmysql.c , in exactly one place. Do you want a
patch against the original dbmysql.c, or against the dbmysql.c with my
speedup patch (which was posted here some time before)?
Alternatively just search that
49 matches
Mail list logo
