Maxime Longuepee put forth on 11/9/2010 11:42 PM:
> Here is the dovecot entry from master.cf:
>
> dovecot unix - n n - - pipe
> flags=DRhu user=dovecot:dovecot argv=/usr/local/libexec/dovecot/deliver
> -d ${recipient}
>
>
> I really appreciate the fact that you
Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
Maxime Longuepee put forth on 11/9/2010 11:24 PM:
Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
Maxime Longuepee put forth on 11/9/2010 11:11 PM:
I didn't change anything.
This is a brand new install i'm trying to get to work.
Non-obfuscated output of the fo
Maxime Longuepee put forth on 11/9/2010 11:24 PM:
> Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
>> Maxime Longuepee put forth on 11/9/2010 11:11 PM:
>>
>>
>>> I didn't change anything.
>>>
>>> This is a brand new install i'm trying to get to work.
>>>
>>
>> Non-obfuscated output of the following commands would
Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
Maxime Longuepee put forth on 11/9/2010 11:11 PM:
I didn't change anything.
This is a brand new install i'm trying to get to work.
Non-obfuscated output of the following commands would be helpful:
postconf -n
dovecot -n
Here is the postconf -n:
address_
Maxime Longuepee put forth on 11/9/2010 11:11 PM:
> I didn't change anything.
>
> This is a brand new install i'm trying to get to work.
Non-obfuscated output of the following commands would be helpful:
postconf -n
dovecot -n
--
Stan
Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
Maxime Longuepee put forth on 11/9/2010 11:01 PM:
I've been having an issue with dovecot since yesterday and can't figure
it out.
It would be really helpful if you mentioned what you changed yesterday.
If delivery functioned before yesterday, and now it doesn'
Maxime Longuepee put forth on 11/9/2010 11:01 PM:
> I've been having an issue with dovecot since yesterday and can't figure
> it out.
It would be really helpful if you mentioned what you changed yesterday.
If delivery functioned before yesterday, and now it doesn't, you
obviously changed somethi
Hi!
I've been having an issue with dovecot since yesterday and can't figure
it out.
All my users can send mail without any problem but all incomming mail
are deffered. Here is the log from postfix complaining the mail has been
deferred:
Nov 9 23:35:51 www postfix/pipe[50019]: A20EB145FC2C:
On 11/09/2010 10:59 PM, Eric Rostetter wrote:
> Quoting David Ford :
>
>> I'm not a proponent of fail2ban as I think going straight to the horse's
>> mouth is wiser (keep it all in iptables in the first place).
>
> I'm not a fan of fail2ban (tail/grep a log file, really?) but there
> are other opti
Quoting David Ford :
I'm not a proponent of fail2ban as I think going straight to the horse's
mouth is wiser (keep it all in iptables in the first place).
I'm not a fan of fail2ban (tail/grep a log file, really?) but there
are other options which do this kind of thing "better" and still
allow
I'm not a proponent of fail2ban as I think going straight to the horse's
mouth is wiser (keep it all in iptables in the first place). I agree
with Stan that your VPS provider is on the wal-mart list. If no other
solution avails, code up a quick little ditty that does the actual
socket listen. If
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Tom put forth on 11/9/2010 8:53 PM:
>
>> we have recently had some brute force attacks on the pop3 and imapd and
>> this results in many processes being used for login attempts.
>>
>> Our dovecot is hosted on a Virtual Private Server which res
Tom put forth on 11/9/2010 8:53 PM:
> we have recently had some brute force attacks on the pop3 and imapd and
> this results in many processes being used for login attempts.
>
> Our dovecot is hosted on a Virtual Private Server which restricts access
> to IPTABLEs and also make a limit on the num
Hi,
I am kind of restricted to using packaged versions of software due to
company policy, and we have f12 on our mail server with
dovecot-1.2.15-2.fc12.i686 package.
we have recently had some brute force attacks on the pop3 and imapd and
this results in many processes being used for login a
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On 9.11.2010, at 23.49, Mark Moseley wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>>> On 9.11.2010, at 22.14, Mark Moseley wrote:
>>>
service imap {
service_count = 0
}
>> Would the risks involved be id
On 9.11.2010, at 23.49, Mark Moseley wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>> On 9.11.2010, at 22.14, Mark Moseley wrote:
>>
>>> service imap {
>>> service_count = 0
>>> }
>>>
> Would the risks involved be identical to your warnings about using
> "service_count=0" with p
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On 9.11.2010, at 22.14, Mark Moseley wrote:
>
>> service imap {
>> service_count = 0
>> }
>>
>> Is that safe to do in imap and/or pop3? Or at least no more insecure
>> than using service_count=0 for imap-login and pop3-login?
>
> Yep.
>
Would
Hey Folks,
i am trying to get Dovecot LDA to work with Active Directory
dovecot --version
1.2.9
While using Postfix to deliver mail, dovecot does only imap-Services,
passdb is auth bind and userdb is static.
NOW i want to use Sieve Scripts. So LDA of dovecot is required. So
userdb lookup is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Le 10.11.2010 00:05, Timo Sirainen a écrit :
> On 9.11.2010, at 22.14, Mark Moseley wrote:
>
>> service imap {
>> service_count = 0
>> }
>>
>> Is that safe to do in imap and/or pop3? Or at least no more insecure
>> than using service_count=0 for imap-
On 9.11.2010, at 22.16, Scott Goodwin wrote:
> in-log attached. I don't see any truncation in there, though you can see
> that there is the byte sequence 0D090A09 in there, which I think is what is
> breaking it (whatever "it" is).
Yeah. Outlook adds the extra empty line there in the middle.
>
On 9.11.2010, at 22.14, Mark Moseley wrote:
> service imap {
> service_count = 0
> }
>
> Is that safe to do in imap and/or pop3? Or at least no more insecure
> than using service_count=0 for imap-login and pop3-login?
Yep.
Roland Stuehmer wrote:
> I patched Dovecot 1.2.15 with your diff (and with debian patches). I
> then accessed all mailboxes. For some it went OK, but for some I now
> only see old mail and am missing the newest ones starting from some time
> in February (I probably did a dovecot upgrade then).
>
>
in-log attached. I don't see any truncation in there, though you can see
that there is the byte sequence 0D090A09 in there, which I think is what is
breaking it (whatever "it" is).
Still not sure if this indicates the mangling happens somewhere on my linux
server, or somewhere upstream in Outlook/
This is copy-pasted from Timo's comment in the "Todays Performance
Data for 2.0.x" thread, but I didn't want to hijack that thread. In
it, Timo says:
service imap {
service_count = 0
}
(i.e. reuse imap processes) reduced the system CPU usage to almost
nothing. But if you use different UIDs for
* Timo Sirainen :
> Hmm. I added a few minor optimizations to hg, which probably don't help
> all that much. Removing config and auth-master lookups didn't make much
> of a difference, so I don't think those are the main problem.
>
> I haven't yet seen any logparse lines about master, log or anvi
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 19:20 +, Ed W wrote:
> 36203 36204 36205 36206 36207 36208 36209 36210 36211
> doveadm(root): Error: zlib.read(): unexpected EOF at 2489
> I now restart the server (while the client sitting and hanging),
> abbreviated output:
>
> 36207 36208 36209 36210 36211
> 8 OK
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 20:56 +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> > So, yeah, looks like the process initialization is wasting time
> > somewhere. I'll look further into it.
>
> Thanks a lot!
Hmm. I added a few minor optimizations to hg, which probably don't help
all that much. Removing config and au
* Timo Sirainen :
> Dividing the imap processes's system CPU usage by number of imap
> processes:
>
> imap : 0.478872 of 975
> imap : 0.460797 of 1242
> imap : 0.409641 of 2482
> imap : 0.424035 of 4711
> imap : 0.488494 of 6148
> imap : 0.56809 of 7031
> imap : 0.734864 of 6965
>
> So it's about
On 03/11/2010 16:29, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 12:40 +, Ed W wrote:
Examining the raw data makes me suspect that we are missing the header
data in the logged output? I'm trying to follow the code in
imap_zlib_plugin.c, but I can't see how the logging works?
Can you please
Dividing the imap processes's system CPU usage by number of imap
processes:
imap : 0.478872 of 975
imap : 0.460797 of 1242
imap : 0.409641 of 2482
imap : 0.424035 of 4711
imap : 0.488494 of 6148
imap : 0.56809 of 7031
imap : 0.734864 of 6965
So it's about 0.5 seconds of system CPU per imap login.
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 15:50 +0100, Leo Baltus wrote:
> Nov 09 15:19:25 imap(foo@example.com): Error: user foo@example.com:
> Initialization failed: Initializing mail storage from mail_location setting
> failed: No home directory for system user. Can't expand ~ for mail root dir
> in: ~:I
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 10:10 -0800, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
> Is there a way I can setup "trash" folders to be stored in a different
> subdirectory using mdbox? The goal is to provide a way to identify the
> trash folders for my backup solution (rsync) and avoid copying trash.
Well, you could se
Is there a way I can setup "trash" folders to be stored in a different
subdirectory using mdbox? The goal is to provide a way to identify the
trash folders for my backup solution (rsync) and avoid copying trash.
--
Daniel
On Mon, 2010-11-08 at 16:57 -0800, Scott Goodwin wrote:
> Note that this is the rawlog.out, not the rawlog.in. My confusion here lies
> in the fact that the breakage seems to be in the out-log only. I just don't
> know how to read these logs.
> The in-log is basically exactly the same as the out
hi...
you can set more than one ldap config in dovecot:
passdb ldap {
args= /full/path/to/dovecot-ldap1.conf
}
passdb ldap {
args= /full/path/to/dovecot-ldap2.conf
}
userdb ldap {
args= /full/path/to/dovecot-ldap1.conf
}
userdb ldap {
args= /full/path/to/dovecot-ldap2.conf
}
or y
Hello, just upgraded one of my testing machine from dovecot 1.2.15 to
2.0.7. After some trouble with permissions now all seems working, but
when I stop dovecot I have these errors in log:
Nov 9 17:08:07 in dovecot: master: Warning: Killed with signal 15 (by
pid=20362 uid=0 code=kill)
Nov 9
Hi there,
I am setting up mail client with DoveCot and, at the same time, use
Postfix to deliver message to DoveCot via LDA. I want to support having
user name "jsmith" on my mail client, and that gets all messages for
email address: dovecotd...@domain. (The user name is different from
what is i
Hi,
I am not an this list, I hope it gets through:
We just moved from dovecot-1.2.12 to dovecot-2.0.6.
One of our users wants his mail directly in his homedir which worked
fine so far but with 2.0.6:
Nov 09 15:19:25 imap(foo@example.com): Error: user foo@example.com:
Initialization fai
On 09.11.2010 14:07, maximatt wrote:
>if body :matches ["text/html"] ["these_is_a_test"] {
>
> gives the followin error when i try to parse them:
>
> line 4: error: the body test requires 1 positional argument(s), but 2
> is/are specified.
> error: validation failed.
This probab
changing the answer...
Why these stament:
if body :matches ["text/html"] ["these_is_a_test"] {
gives the followin error when i try to parse them:
line 4: error: the body test requires 1 positional argument(s), but 2
is/are specified.
error: validation failed.
i found some exampl
hi...
¿exist some way to extract message body contect to a variable with dovecot
sieve plugin? ¿:(?
it's needed to do something like these:
if address :matches ["From"] ["*"] {
set "sender" "${0}";
# i try using something like "if body
:raw :contains ["*"]" and use ${1} but
Le 9 nov. 2010 à 01:57:17, Scott Goodwin a écrit :
> Looks like there was some more discussion of this via the digest, but to
> keep the original thread intact, I'll just reply here.
> I'm still a little confused over whether or not my issue is an
> Outlook/Exchange problem or something else, sinc
Lox put forth on 11/8/2010 10:29 PM:
> Hello,
>
> I have an Ubuntu Lucid Postfix/Dovecot server. I have a web ui to manage my
> websites, emails and so that makes use of Procmail but would I like my users
> to be able to use Managesieve filters.
>
> It it possible to "chain" them ? How?
Read thi
Ralf Hildebrandt put forth on 11/8/2010 12:44 PM:
> * Stan Hoeppner :
>
>> Does this machine have more than 4GB of RAM? You do realize that merely
>> utilizing PAE will cause an increase in context switching, whether on
>> bare medal or in a VM guest. It will probably actually be much higher
>>
44 matches
Mail list logo
