On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>>
>> Is there a reason why 172.16.0.0/12 was left out of the change ^^ ?
>
> Is it actually used? :) I've used 192.168 in my home network and all
> corporate networks I've seen have been 10/8. But yeah, I guess since there
> aren't more th
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:50 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On 14.8.2012, at 11.18, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>
> v2.2 has this now: http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.2/rev/8d7f9e2d726c
Is there a reason why 172.16.0.0/12 was left out of the change ^^ ?
--
.warren
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Joseph Tam wrote:
>
> Well, OK, if you not keen on greylisting, you can try greet pausing,
> which introduces a shorter delay.
>
This, works well. Interesting your sweet spot is around 20seconds, I
found 13s to be the right mark.
--
.warren
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Morten Stevens
wrote:
> No, greylisting is really a bad solution. It is not RFC compliant and delays
> the mail traffic.
Since when? RFC5321 was updated to handle delays and then there is RFC6647.
--
.warren
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Antoine Nguyen wrote:
> Le 11 avril 2012 09:23, Timo Sirainen a écrit :
>> > I would have the option of adding a comment that doesn't go to the
>> mailing list
>>
>> But I'm beginning to think that no BTS supports that in the way I want.
>> And it's not a huge pr
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Patrick Ben Koetter
wrote:
> * Antoine Nguyen :
>>
>> It's more than just a bug tracker but I think it answers your needs.
>
> +1
>
> We moved from trac to redmine about a year ago and still are very happy about
> it. Our non-technical customers can deal with it w
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> At an ISP I worked at, we did a study (just over 2 years ago) on the
>> average size of spam mail that was been delivered to the users. It
>> worked out to an average size of between 8KB and 10KB. This was based
>> on data over a period of
On Monday, January 17, 2011, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Cor Bosman put forth on 1/16/2011 5:34 PM:
>> Btw, our average mailsize last we checked was 30KB. Thats a pretty good
>> average as we're an ISP with a very wide user base. I think 4KB average is
>> not a normal mail load.
>
> As another OP po
On 18 February 2010 16:41, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> It's not about how much work adding that setting is. It's that I don't
> think there should be settings for stuff that (almost) everyone sets
> only one way. Useless extra settings cause bugs and bloat, both to code
> and documentation.
Understood
On 18 February 2010 16:20, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>
> Wonder if there's anyone who wouldn't want this behavior? One exception
> could be that if mail is larger than the user's entire quota limit, it
> wouldn't be accepted. And this would happen only for deliver/lmtp, not
> imap append (because it wo
On 1 February 2010 11:32, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On 1.2.2010, at 8.38, Andreas Schulze wrote:
>
>> In the first case there are *no* Return-Path and Delivered-To Headers.
>> In the (most common) second case the *are* present.
>> Why these Headers are not included while using the LMTP-Server?
>
> I
2009/9/28 Patrick Domack
> Hmm, strange results.
>
> My dovecot compiled on freebsd using openssl doesn't do compression.
> But my dovecot compiled on redhat using openssl does do it.
>
> redhat openssl 0.9.8b
> freebsd openssl 0.9.7e (really old)
You don't say which version of FreeBSD you usin
2008/12/12 Timo Sirainen
> On Nov 12, 2008, at 3:01 PM, Warren Baker wrote:
>
> Where the first line is a header. So for example with 3 different kinds
>>> of Courier UIDLs:
>>>
>>> 3 V1196932607 N125574
>>> 1234 P1234 :1225386267.M230815P212
Hi All,
Is there any specific details we can extract from dovecots authentication
cache (besides Authentication cache hits)?
Reason i am asking is because we had a mysql user account which was
returning a unknown user account. Fixing the one value in the sql result
didnt have any affect and Doveco
2008/11/12 Timo Sirainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Dovecot v1.1 can read v1.0 uidlists just fine, so the script still
> works. But it's possible that the script doesn't convert all POP3 UIDLs
> because it wasn't possible with v1.0 (it'll report how many it couldn't
> convert).
Answers my question why
HI All,
We have the latest Dovecot 1.1.6 running and I need to migrate some
POP3 users over from Courier to Dovecot and would need to convert the
courierpop3dsizelist to maintain the UIDs.
I just need to confirm that the script
(http://www.dovecot.org/tools/courier-dovecot-migrate.pl) only works
f
2008/11/7 Timo Sirainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 14:37 +0200, Warren Baker wrote:
>> But if we fetch the latest 25 messages, Dovecot will fetch the lowest
>> UID in the list first, so from the example above it would fetch UID
>> 171,172,173 and so on
Hi all,
Is there a function to modify the fetch order of messages? We have
just migrated from Courier to Dovecot and I notice that there is a
slight difference in the way messages are fetched in Dovecot compared
to Courier.
Both Courier and Dovecot sort the mailbox correctly (UID SORT (REVERSE
AR
18 matches
Mail list logo
