Traditionally this server has only accepted plaintext authentications;
however, we want to change that and enable TLS/SSL. The challenge is
the server has hundreds of IP addresses it binds to to listen on ports
110/143.
Enabling TLS/SSL is not an option because as this is a virtual hosting
enviro
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 12:03 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> Nathan M wrote:
>>
>> Traditionally this server has only accepted plaintext authentications;
>> however, we want to change that and enable TLS/SSL. The challenge is
>> the server has hundreds of IP address
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 6:54 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 18:27 -0700, Nathan M wrote:
>> 1. Ideal scenario. A config option which tells TLS to only respond on
>> certain IPs. In our case if a connection attempts to initiate TLS on
>> any IP address exce
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> Also, some users "need" to check email with username only, so the
>> local_ip variable is used within the dovecot-sql query to lookup some
>> virtual users by username only + match the local_ip to a table with
>> domain+ip lookup.
>
> Ok,
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Brent Bloxam wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm curious about some of the larger dovecot installs out there and what
> your current active user load looks like per server. Realistically, how many
> active IMAP sessions are some of you maintaining? At what point did you find
> th
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 14:32 -0400, Jonathan Siegle wrote:
>> It only helps when I kill dovecot-auth, not dovecot-auth -w.
>
> Interesting..
>
>> > What if you kill imap-login processes instead?
>> >
>>
>> I don't have imap-login processes as
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>
> So killing dovecot-auth fixes the problem? What if you set
> login_process_per_connection=no?
>
>
Next time it happens I'll just try killing dovecot-auth. Thus far the
fix has been fairly crude:
killall dovecot
/usr/local/sbin/dovecot
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 12:22 -0700, Nathan M wrote:
>> The difference is we aren't doing PAM, we have it disabled. We do SQL
>> authentication only. Exact same symptoms, the server and all active
>> connections r
