Am 17.05.2012 16:20, schrieb Timo Sirainen:
> On 17.5.2012, at 16.46, Charles Marcus wrote:
>
>> On 2012-05-17 9:38 AM, Bill Cole
>> wrote:
>>> A spammer claiming to be '"Tim Saarela" ' is
>>> sending out a pitch for "Enterprise Level Support" for Dovecot. The
>>> address of mine which he hit is
On Fri, 2012-05-18 at 11:35 +0700, Tamsy wrote:
> All that noise because of one mail offering some paid support is so
one mail multiplies by all the miscreants in the world adds up to a
bucket load of crap
> unnecessary!
Actually, it has merits, because it is spam, had it gone to users@ or
On Thu, 2012-05-17 at 20:32 -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
> Jeff Kletsky wrote:
> > Even with "good intent" the message in question is clearly in
> > violation of CAN-SPAM and Cal. Bus. Prof. Code Sec. 17529, of which
> > the sender was informed of when my server was accessed.
> ---
> And you ha
Linda Walsh wrote the following on 18.05.2012 10:32:
Jeff Kletsky wrote:
Even with "good intent" the message in question is clearly in
violation of CAN-SPAM and Cal. Bus. Prof. Code Sec. 17529, of which
the sender was informed of when my server was accessed.
---
And you have proof of this?
Jeff Kletsky wrote:
Even with "good intent" the message in question is clearly in
violation of CAN-SPAM and Cal. Bus. Prof. Code Sec. 17529, of which
the sender was informed of when my server was accessed.
---
And you have proof of this? That they received notice? I assume
you have
their
On Thu, 2012-05-17 at 11:42 -0400, Bill Cole wrote:
> On 17 May 2012, at 10:56, Charles Marcus wrote:
>
> > On 2012-05-17 10:20 AM, dovecot-20120...@billmail.scconsult.com wrote:
> >> On 17 May 2012, at 9:46, Charles Marcus wrote:
> >>> Tim is working closely with Timo, and I'm sure got Timo's pe
It wasn't sent to the list, it was direct, therefore it IS spam
On Thu, 2012-05-17 at 16:24 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> well, but what is exactly your problem with people offering professional
> support for dovecot which is ON-TOPIC if this are not 20 mails each day?
>
signature.asc
Des
On 5/17/2012 3:19 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On 17.5.2012, at 22.56, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>> On 5/17/2012 9:45 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>>
>>> The list included only .com addresses, with gmail/yahoo/etc removed. I'm
>>> sure Tim will be happy to send you the email if you ask it from him. :)
>>
Yep, that's the way it works. In effect the LDAP server can use any
schema for storing its passwords, since you can then authenticate onto
the LDAP server itself, using Dovecot as a kind of proxy.
In effect LDAP server can store different user passwords in different
schemas as well (I'd recommend
Interesting - just so I have this clear in my own head. The password
scheme is the way the password is encrypted but the authentication
mechanism is whether the password is sent encrypted as well?
On 17/05/12 22:00, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On 16.5.2012, at 19.36, Manuel Fernández Panzuela wrote:
On 16.5.2012, at 19.36, Manuel Fernández Panzuela wrote:
> Hello
>
> I need to authenticate dovecot against openldap. OpenLdap's authentication
> method requires SHA.
> How must I set dovecot ?
..
>#mechanisms = plain SHA
..
> If I uncomment #mechanisms = plain SHA Dovecot doesn't start,
On 17.5.2012, at 18.22, Root Kev wrote:
> We have put Dovecot 2.1.4 on several of our production servers (CentOS, on
> Dell R710, with 20GB memory, dual CPU Quad-core). We have a single instance
> of Dovecot running and currently have several instances of Popa3d. When
> there are significant amou
On 17.5.2012, at 22.56, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 5/17/2012 9:45 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>
>> The list included only .com addresses, with gmail/yahoo/etc removed. I'm
>> sure Tim will be happy to send you the email if you ask it from him. :)
>
> But not all .com's. I didn't receive such an em
On 05/17/2012 11:56 AM, Spyros Tsiolis wrote:
>
> But I still think that it was merely an issue of
> announcing it rather than gathering data from
>
> the list.
>
First, that (assuming I understand correctly) the message was
apparently sent by means other than the list suggests that a list of
s
On 5/17/2012 9:45 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> The list included only .com addresses, with gmail/yahoo/etc removed. I'm sure
> Tim will be happy to send you the email if you ask it from him. :)
But not all .com's. I didn't receive such an email. Which means you
sat down and spent some amount of
>> My take on this (if anyone is interested
>> in my opinion) is that Timo should be free
>> to do whatever he wants with his code.
>
> This is not about the code, this is about using data gathered from
> subscriptions to a public mailing list to send unasked marketing
> emails.
>
> Dennis
>
Even with "good intent" the message in question is clearly in violation
of CAN-SPAM and Cal. Bus. Prof. Code Sec. 17529, of which the sender was
informed of when my server was accessed. It was very clearly an
"electronic mail message the primary purpose of which is the commercial
advertisement
Hi Timo,
Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-05-13 at 02:07 +0200, Daniel Parthey wrote:
>
> > in my dovecot setup the accounting database table shows wrong
> > values which do not correspond with the actual disk space used.
>
> Can you easily reproduce this with a test user? How?
Maybe this is
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 09:47:23AM -0600, Douglas Mortensen wrote:
> I personally didn't mind a one-time notice from the dev's team that
> that are now offering paid commercial support. What if I WANTED it?
There might be a lot of people who did not mind one offlist contact to
a list address, but
Well, the good news is this didn't end up being a dovecot or NetApp
issue. RHEL 6.2 has a kernel bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=770250
Solution is to upgrade to the latest kernel released on 5/15:
kernel-2.6.32-220.17.1.el6
We no longer get this error after the update. Thanks
On 2012-05-17 11:48 AM, C. Bensend wrote:
However, I would prefer that it
went to the list, instead of individually to the list members.
That's the only part of this I didn't care for.
Actually, I thought it did go to the list...
Yeah, ok, now I can see a *little* legitimacy to the complaint,
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 11:37:15AM -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 2012-05-17 11:20 AM, Dennis Guhl wrote:
> >I did not received this mail so I can't comment on the appearance but
> >I would not be happy to receive any unrequested commercial offers,
> >irrelevant which form it comes along.
>
>
> I was surprised that directly contacting people worked at all, but since
> it has I thought I'd allow it and hope it wouldn't piss off too many
> people.. There won't be more than that one mail, which you're free to just
> ignore.
>
> If we get enough funding we can hire more people to work on D
I personally didn't mind a one-time notice from the dev's team that that are
now offering paid commercial support. What if I WANTED it? I felt like it was a
courtesy email from them to let me know that it's available.
If those emails continue unsolicited, then it may start to feel like spam to
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 04:33:30PM +0100, Giles Coochey wrote:
[..]
> [sarcasm on]
> No, I think we should lock Tim & Timo up and force Timo to eat
> lentils while he codes his IMAP server for us. It's incredibly
> astounding that he should even need to be involved in a business
> where he makes
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 04:36:07PM +0100, Spyros Tsiolis wrote:
> I hear people complaining about Timos'
>
> effort to try and make a profit out of
> his idea.
The complains are not about the intention to make profit but about the
way of costumer acquisition.
> Maybe these people would prefer f
On 17 May 2012, at 10:20, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On 17.5.2012, at 16.46, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2012-05-17 9:38 AM, Bill Cole
wrote:
A spammer claiming to be '"Tim Saarela" ' is
sending out a pitch for "Enterprise Level Support" for Dovecot. The
address of mine which he hit is only ever used
On 17 May 2012, at 10:56, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2012-05-17 10:20 AM, dovecot-20120...@billmail.scconsult.com wrote:
On 17 May 2012, at 9:46, Charles Marcus wrote:
Tim is working closely with Timo, and I'm sure got Timo's permission
to send that email to list subscribers.
I subscribed to
On 2012-05-17 11:20 AM, Dennis Guhl wrote:
I did not received this mail so I can't comment on the appearance but
I would not be happy to receive any unrequested commercial offers,
irrelevant which form it comes along.
It was a simple *notification* email, letting people know the new
company e
I hear people complaining about Timos'
effort to try and make a profit out of
his idea.
Maybe these people would prefer for people
like Timo to not announce anything at all and
do this without informing anyone ?
My take on this (if anyone is interested
in my opinion) is that Timo should be free
On 17/05/2012 16:20, Dennis Guhl wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 10:56:50AM -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2012-05-17 10:20 AM, dovecot-20120...@billmail.scconsult.com wrote:
On 17 May 2012, at 9:46, Charles Marcus wrote:
Tim is working closely with Timo, and I'm sure got Timo's permission
to
Hello all,
We have put Dovecot 2.1.4 on several of our production servers (CentOS, on
Dell R710, with 20GB memory, dual CPU Quad-core). We have a single instance
of Dovecot running and currently have several instances of Popa3d. When
there are significant amount of popping from 2 mailboxes that d
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 10:56:50AM -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 2012-05-17 10:20 AM, dovecot-20120...@billmail.scconsult.com wrote:
> >On 17 May 2012, at 9:46, Charles Marcus wrote:
> >>Tim is working closely with Timo, and I'm sure got Timo's permission
> >>to send that email to list subscrib
On 2012-05-17 10:20 AM, dovecot-20120...@billmail.scconsult.com wrote:
On 17 May 2012, at 9:46, Charles Marcus wrote:
Tim is working closely with Timo, and I'm sure got Timo's permission
to send that email to list subscribers.
I subscribed to the Dovecot Users mailing list, not "Whatever spam
On 17.5.2012, at 17.25, Giles Coochey wrote:
> And he could do with re-posting his email, as I don't appear to have it in my
> archive.
The list included only .com addresses, with gmail/yahoo/etc removed. I'm sure
Tim will be happy to send you the email if you ask it from him. :)
On 17/05/2012 15:24, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 17.05.2012 16:20, schrieb dovecot-20120...@billmail.scconsult.com:
On 17 May 2012, at 9:46, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2012-05-17 9:38 AM, Bill Cole
wrote:
A spammer claiming to be '"Tim Saarela"' is
sending out a pitch for "Enterprise Level Suppor
Am 17.05.2012 16:20, schrieb dovecot-20120...@billmail.scconsult.com:
> On 17 May 2012, at 9:46, Charles Marcus wrote:
>
>> On 2012-05-17 9:38 AM, Bill Cole
>> wrote:
>>> A spammer claiming to be '"Tim Saarela" ' is
>>> sending out a pitch for "Enterprise Level Support" for Dovecot. The
>>> add
On 17.5.2012, at 16.46, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 2012-05-17 9:38 AM, Bill Cole
> wrote:
>> A spammer claiming to be '"Tim Saarela" ' is
>> sending out a pitch for "Enterprise Level Support" for Dovecot. The
>> address of mine which he hit is only ever used for this mailing list, so
>> it is cl
On 17 May 2012, at 9:46, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2012-05-17 9:38 AM, Bill Cole
wrote:
A spammer claiming to be '"Tim Saarela" ' is
sending out a pitch for "Enterprise Level Support" for Dovecot. The
address of mine which he hit is only ever used for this mailing list,
so
it is clear that wh
On 2012-05-17 9:38 AM, Bill Cole
wrote:
A spammer claiming to be '"Tim Saarela" ' is
sending out a pitch for "Enterprise Level Support" for Dovecot. The
address of mine which he hit is only ever used for this mailing list, so
it is clear that whatever the mechanism, this list is being harvested
A spammer claiming to be '"Tim Saarela" ' is
sending out a pitch for "Enterprise Level Support" for Dovecot. The
address of mine which he hit is only ever used for this mailing list, so
it is clear that whatever the mechanism, this list is being harvested
for commercial leads.
Hi there,
We're running dovecot 1.1 on one set of servers with a courier-imap-like
namespace configuration:
namespace private {
separator = .
prefix = INBOX.
inbox = yes
}
We're now migrating customers onto a dovecot-2 platform, switching from
Maildir to sdbox (using dsync mirror
Hi there,
We're running dovecot 1.1 on one set of servers with a courier-imap-like
namespace configuration:
namespace private {
separator = .
prefix = INBOX.
inbox = yes
}
We're now migrating customers onto a dovecot-2 platform, switching from
Maildir to sdbox (using dsync mirror
On 05/17/2012 12:11 PM Joan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Due to some reasons I've to support both dovecot 1.2 and dovecot 2.x, and I
> just found that the -s parameter I used to autosubscribe to sieve folders
> doesn't exist anymore in dovecot 2.x
> The problem arises because (AFAIK) in postfix's master.cf yo
Hi,
Due to some reasons I've to support both dovecot 1.2 and dovecot 2.x, and I
just found that the -s parameter I used to autosubscribe to sieve folders
doesn't exist anymore in dovecot 2.x
The problem arises because (AFAIK) in postfix's master.cf you can only
specify one configuration, and I use
45 matches
Mail list logo
