On Fri 30 Mar 2007 at 06:07PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
http://dovecot.org/releases/dovecot-1.0.rc29.tar.gz
http://dovecot.org/releases/dovecot-1.0.rc29.tar.gz.sig
Probably one more RC after this.
Hey all-- for those interested in deploying 1.0rc29, I just wanted to
report that I deployed
On April 4, 2007 6:35:27 PM -0700 Dan Price [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We're still working on debugging why our Kerberos setup isn't working--
Thanks to Timo we have auth_gssapi_hostname, but we're still not quite
there... our Kerberos engineers are looking into it.
There was a recent thread on
--On Saturday, March 31, 2007 9:32 AM +0200 John and Catherine Allen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- mind share in the boardroom is not the only possible goal for a
project
I was thinking of installed base, not commercial users per se.
On Saturday March 31, 2007 at 08:32:40 (AM) Jeff A. Earickson wrote:
My one concern about dovecot is the feeping creaturism in the code.
Why does it have to be an LDA? That is what procmail is for. And designing
your own mailbox format (dbox?) seems dangerous too. I would have it
stick to
Dean Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have to agree with you on this. I'm relatively new with Dovecot and
have been evaluating it for deployment in a production environment. I
must say that Dovecot has the most unusual development method of a
large-scale project I've seen.
There have
At 8:32 AM -0400 3/31/07, Jeff A. Earickson wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Frank Cusack wrote:
FWIW, in my experience, all 1.0 software is utter shit and should be
avoided like the plague if stability is a requirement. So 0.99, 1.0, etc
is all meaningless to me.
1.0 = shit is almost always true
http://dovecot.org/releases/dovecot-1.0.rc29.tar.gz
http://dovecot.org/releases/dovecot-1.0.rc29.tar.gz.sig
Probably one more RC after this.
* Security fix: If zlib plugin was loaded, it was possible to open
gzipped mbox files outside the user's mail directory.
+ Added
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Timo Sirainen schrieb:
http://dovecot.org/releases/dovecot-1.0.rc29.tar.gz
http://dovecot.org/releases/dovecot-1.0.rc29.tar.gz.sig
Probably one more RC after this.
* Security fix: If zlib plugin was loaded, it was possible to open
On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 05:47:30PM +0200, Robert Schetterer wrote:
HI Timo,
you added the wiki in txt format to the docs dir,
this again brokes my suse spec *g
What annoys me more (as dovecot maintainer for pkgsrc) is that the example
config file changes with (almost) every release. The
Le 30.03.2007 18:23, Geert Hendrickx a écrit :
On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 05:47:30PM +0200, Robert Schetterer wrote:
HI Timo,
you added the wiki in txt format to the docs dir,
this again brokes my suse spec *g
What annoys me more (as dovecot maintainer for pkgsrc) is that the example
config
Geert Hendrickx wrote:
What annoys me more (as dovecot maintainer for pkgsrc) is that the example
config file changes with (almost) every release. The changes are mostly
just in comments, but it makes users have to merge their configuration on
every update.
What part of Release Candidate
On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 12:35:09PM -0400, John Peacock wrote:
What part of Release Candidate isn't clear here... ;-)
release candidate equals latest supported release in this case as well.
If they were 2.0 rc's, I'd continue running the latest 1.whatever release
until done.
Geert
On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 07:35:40PM +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote:
I hate how badly the configuration file updating works everywhere (well,
or at least in Debian). If the changes don't really change any existing
settings and won't conflict with the modified parts of the config file,
there's no
On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 04:05:55PM -0700, Kenneth Porter wrote:
A few new small features and lots of index/mbox fixes. I've been heavily
stress testing this release, so I think it should be about perfect. :)
*Features*?! In an rc?! No wonder there's no convergence.
[snip]
So please, no
On March 30, 2007 4:05:55 PM -0700 Kenneth Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--On Friday, March 30, 2007 3:24 PM -0700 Frank Cusack
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is why I'm still using 0.99. The RC's still look like betas and I
have no idea which one (if any) is less a regression than any other.
On March 30, 2007 7:31:15 PM -0400 Dean Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 04:05:55PM -0700, Kenneth Porter wrote:
A few new small features and lots of index/mbox fixes. I've been
heavily stress testing this release, so I think it should be about
perfect. :)
--On Friday, March 30, 2007 4:41 PM -0700 Frank Cusack
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are going to have to do the exact same testing from 0.99-1.0 as
you would from 0.99-1.0rc29. Caveat emptor with open source software;
the responsibility is upon YOU to do your own testing.
Actually, no. A
--On Friday, March 30, 2007 4:52 PM -0700 Frank Cusack
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's very easy. In the dovecot world, rc means development version.
Or are you too stupid and ignorant to learn how the versioning works
for dovecot. (Sorry, that's directed to another dovecot thread; I'm
not
On March 30, 2007 5:04:58 PM -0700 Kenneth Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--On Friday, March 30, 2007 4:52 PM -0700 Frank Cusack
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's very easy. In the dovecot world, rc means development version.
Or are you too stupid and ignorant to learn how the versioning works
--On Friday, March 30, 2007 5:22 PM -0700 Frank Cusack
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please don't mistake my email for any involvement with dovecot
development. AFAIK, Timo is the one and only developer. That's sure to
win over your board and boards worldwide.
If you mean a single developer
Quoting Dean Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I have to agree with you on this. I'm relatively new with Dovecot and
have been evaluating it for deployment in a production environment. I
must say that Dovecot has the most unusual development method of a
large-scale project I've seen.
I've seen
Quoting Kenneth Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
That's fine for isolated users supporting only themselves. But it won't
win any mind share in the boardroom. If you want widespread deployment
to get proper testing (and hence a larger user base) you need a version
number that gives business people the
On 2007 Mar 30 (Fri) at 20:56:43 -0700 (-0700), Kenneth Porter wrote:
:--On Friday, March 30, 2007 8:26 PM -0700 Peter Hessler
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:
:This sort of decision is exactly why I'm the mail admin and they are
:not. They know things at the boardroom level, and they are
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 16:05 -0700, Kenneth Porter wrote:
--On Friday, March 30, 2007 3:24 PM -0700 Frank Cusack
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is why I'm still using 0.99. The RC's still look like betas and I
have no idea which one (if any) is less a regression than any other.
They ARE
24 matches
Mail list logo
