On Wed, 2012-06-27 at 22:18 +0200, Edgar Fuß wrote:
With 1.2, is there a syntax to, for LDAP lookups, use a given fixed
replacement for a non-present LDAP attribute?
E.g. something that would extend
user_attrs = mailFileServer=mail=maildir:/import/mail/%$/%d
to use
On Wed, 2012-06-27 at 19:08 -0700, Joseph Tam wrote:
I dont known about Angel, but for me is useful because sometimes i need to
deactivate smtp/imap/pop access from accounts, or change their home after
storage migration, and removing a specific record i can use a long time
cache.
I'm
On Thu, 2012-06-28 at 07:54 +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
why this process (which most probably do squat index/update) runs as root,
not - like imap process - as user?
29413 root 1 760 22820K 9204K kqread 1 0:17 5.86%
indexer-worker
It runs as root while not really
On Wed, 2012-06-27 at 08:34 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2012-06-27 8:29 AM, Timo Sirainen t...@iki.fi wrote:
On 23.6.2012, at 13.34, Charles Marcus wrote:
It would be nice if there were a wiki page specifically describing
how permissions should be set for all of the services/directories
On Wed, 2012-06-27 at 15:10 +0200, Reinhard Vicinus wrote:
Hi,
if i delete the home directory and all content below an existing account
u...@example.org. Then run:
/usr/bin/doveadm quota recalc -u u...@example.org
Are you sure quota recalc makes a difference here? What if you simply
run
On 28/06/12 08:53, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Wed, 2012-06-27 at 15:10 +0200, Reinhard Vicinus wrote:
Hi,
if i delete the home directory and all content below an existing account
u...@example.org. Then run:
/usr/bin/doveadm quota recalc -u u...@example.org
Are you sure quota recalc makes a
El 27/06/12 14:24, Timo Sirainen escribió:
On 27.6.2012, at 14.10, Angel L. Mateo wrote:
We have dovecot configured with auth cache. Is there any way to remove
a specific entry (not all) from this cache?
Nope. What do you need it for?
Because information for users sometimes
Hello Timo,
Thanks for your reply. I have the dovewiki a little bit misunderstod.
Public mailboxes are typically mailboxes that are visible to all users or to
large user groups. They are created by defining a public namespace, under which
all the shared mailboxes are
Daniel
Timo List,
Just by way of a follow-up, running tests on a 1.0 installation of Dovecot
confirms it.
Sure enough, I was still configuring my mail stores based on my outdated
understanding and hadn't fully appreciated changes to what dovecot-shared files
affect in recent versions.
Thanks all,
The mail field defaults to mail_location setting.
Ah, yes, thanks. So simple I didn't think of it.
Will it default when the LDAP attribute is not present or will I have to check
the attribute's presence in the LDAP filter?
On 28.6.2012, at 12.19, Edgar Fuß wrote:
The mail field defaults to mail_location setting.
Ah, yes, thanks. So simple I didn't think of it.
Will it default when the LDAP attribute is not present or will I have to
check the attribute's presence in the LDAP filter?
The default settings are in
29413 root 1 760 22820K 9204K kqread 1 0:17 5.86%
indexer-worker
It runs as root while not really doing anything, but when it starts
accessing users' files it temporarily drops privileges. This is
necessary if users have multiple different UIDs.
to showed it with root
On 28/06/12 09:03, Reinhard Vicinus wrote:
and afterwards:
/usr/bin/doveadm -o imapc_user=u...@example.org -o
imapc_password=imappw
-o imapc_host=local-mailbox -o imapc_features=rfc822.size -o
imapc_port=18143 -D -v backup -R -f -u u...@example.org imapc:
dsync(u...@example.org): Error:
Hello!
somewhere in maillist I've seen RAID1+md concat+XFS being promoted as
mailstorage.
Does anybody in here actually use this setup?
I've decided to give it a try,
but ended up with not being able to recover any data off survived pairs from
linear array when _the_first of raid1 pairs got
On 28/06/2012 13:01, Костырев Александр Алексеевич wrote:
Hello!
somewhere in maillist I've seen RAID1+md concat+XFS being promoted as
mailstorage.
Does anybody in here actually use this setup?
I've decided to give it a try,
but ended up with not being able to recover any data off survived
Note that you wouldn't get anything back from a similar fail of a RAID10
array either (unless we are talking temporary removal and re-insertion?)
use multiple RAID1 arrays, 2 drives each, one filesystem each.
Note that you wouldn't get anything back from a similar fail of a RAID10 array
either
I wasn't aware of it, that's interesting.
(unless we are talking temporary removal and re-insertion?)
nope, I'm talking about complete pair's crash when two disks die.
I do understand that's the possibility of
- RAID1 pairs, plus some kind of intelligent overlay filesystem, eg
md-linear+XFS / BTRFS. With the filesystem aware of the underlying
arrangement it can theoretically optimise file placement and
dramatically increase write speeds for small files in the same manner
that RAID-0 theoretically
Am 2012-06-27 20:47, schrieb Daniel Parthey:
Rolf wrote:
LMTP would be new to me and I fear just other hard-to-understand
configuration topics.
LMTP (Lightweight Message Transfer Protocol) is really simple,
similar to SMTP, but immediately returns a status code which
tells whether the
On 2012-06-28 12:20 PM, Ed W li...@wildgooses.com wrote:
Bad things are going to happen if you loose a complete chunk of your
filesystem. I think the current state of the world is that you should
assume that realistically you will be looking to your backups if you
loose the wrong 2 disks in a
On 28.6.2012, at 17.43, Gary Mort wrote:
http://wiki2.dovecot.org/MailboxFormat/dbox
To make life easy, I'll stick with just single-dbox as a start, however
multi-dbox would be doable.
With dbox, the only thing that I need to change is the alternate storage
model:
An upshot of the way
On 28.6.2012, at 20.14, Timo Sirainen wrote:
An upshot of the way alternate storage works is that any given storage
file (mailboxes/folder/dbox-Mails/u.* (sdbox) or storage/m.* (mdbox)) can
only appear *either* in the primary storage area *or* the alternate storage
area but not both — if the
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Timo Sirainen t...@iki.fi wrote:
On 28.6.2012, at 17.43, Gary Mort wrote:
First I want to add AWS S3 as a storage option for alternate storage.
Then instead of the above model, the new model would be that email is
always stored in alternate storage, and
On 28.6.2012, at 20.55, Gary Mort wrote:
The indexes have to be in primary storage.
True, but the data they are based on I'm assuming does not include the full
email message, just a few key pieces:
uniqueid, subject, from, to, etc.
For an always running server, the indexes are always up
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Timo Sirainen t...@iki.fi wrote:
On 28.6.2012, at 20.14, Timo Sirainen wrote:
An upshot of the way alternate storage works is that any given storage
file (mailboxes/folder/dbox-Mails/u.* (sdbox) or storage/m.* (mdbox))
can
only appear *either* in the
On 28.6.2012, at 21.04, Gary Mort wrote:
mdbox though is different, multiple messages are stored in a single file.
The index indicates in which file each message is located. When the data
is moved to alt storage, the filename can change in which case the index is
updated.
IE:
Jonathan Ryshpan jonr...@pacbell.net wrote:
Quite right; this comes from a reading of pages in both wiki1 and wiki2.
I now surmise that this isn't a good idea since wiki1 describes v1.x
and wiki2 describes v2.x, which have different syntaxes (syntaces?). Is
all this correct?
I too had a
On 2012-06-28 2:04 PM, Gary Mort garyam...@gmail.com wrote:
That's probably due to the different structures they use. sdbox
can safely use either because each email message has a unique
filename, and if it exists in both places it doesn't matter.
Eh?? Sdbox is like mbox - one file per
On 28/06/2012 17:54, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2012-06-28 12:20 PM, Ed W li...@wildgooses.com wrote:
Bad things are going to happen if you loose a complete chunk of your
filesystem. I think the current state of the world is that you should
assume that realistically you will be looking to your
On 2012-06-28 4:22 PM, Alex Crow ac...@integrafin.co.uk wrote:
On 28/06/12 20:28, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2012-06-28 2:04 PM, Gary Mort garyam...@gmail.com wrote:
That's probably due to the different structures they use. sdbox
can safely use either because each email message has a unique
On 06/28/12 05:56, Ed W wrote:
So given the statistics show us that 2 disk failures are much more
common than we expect, and that silent corruption is likely occurring
within (larger) real world file stores, there really aren't many battle
tested options that can protect against this - really
Angel L. Mateo wrote:
El 27/06/12 14:24, Timo Sirainen escribió:
On 27.6.2012, at 14.10, Angel L. Mateo wrote:
We have dovecot configured with auth cache.
Is there any way to remove a specific entry (not all) from this cache?
Nope. What do you need it for?
Because information for users
On 28.6.2012, at 9.43, Timo Sirainen wrote:
It would be possible to add a doveadm command for this.. I think the
main reason why I already didn't do it last time I was asked this was
because I wanted to use doveadm auth cache flush or something similar
as the command, but there already exists
Timo Sirainen wrote:
On 28.6.2012, at 9.43, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Perhaps for v2.2:
doveadm auth test user [pass]
doveadm auth cache flush [user]
doveadm auth cache stats
and for v2.1 a bit kludgy way:
doveadm auth user [pass]
doveadm auth cache flush [user]
so you couldn't test
On 29.6.2012, at 5.18, Daniel Parthey wrote:
wouldn't it be better to use a syntax similar to other doveadm commands,
with labels for all arguments?
doveadm auth test -u user -p [pass]
doveadm auth cache flush -u [user]
doveadm auth cache stats
This will allow you to syntactically
35 matches
Mail list logo
