On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 15:19 +0200, Oliver Eales wrote:
> Am 19.05.2010 10:51, schrieb Timo Sirainen:
> > As http://wiki.dovecot.org/NFS describes, the main problem with NFS has
> > always been caching problems. One NFS client changes two files, but another
> > NFS client sees only one of the chan
Am 19.05.2010 10:51, schrieb Timo Sirainen:
As http://wiki.dovecot.org/NFS describes, the main problem with NFS has always
been caching problems. One NFS client changes two files, but another NFS client
sees only one of the changes, which Dovecot then assumes is caused by
corruption.
host
Timo,
> -Original Message-
>
>> That's too bad! Any hope of getting support for this
>
> I wasn't really planning on implementing it soon.
>
>> and director+proxy_maybe anytime soon?
>
> I tried looking into it today, but it's an annoyingly difficult change,
> so probably won't happen s
On ma, 2010-05-31 at 19:09 -0700, Brandon Davidson wrote:
> Timo,
>
> On 5/31/10 6:56 PM, "Timo Sirainen" wrote:
> >
> > Oh, you're right. For auth settings currently only protocol blocks work. It
> > was a bit too much trouble to make local/remote blocks to work. :)
>
> That's too bad! Any hop
Timo,
On 5/31/10 6:56 PM, "Timo Sirainen" wrote:
>
> Oh, you're right. For auth settings currently only protocol blocks work. It
> was a bit too much trouble to make local/remote blocks to work. :)
That's too bad! Any hope of getting support for this and
director+proxy_maybe anytime soon?
-Bra
On 1.6.2010, at 2.44, Brandon Davidson wrote:
> It still seems to
> ignore the block and only use the global definition, even if doveconf -f
> lip= shows that it's expanding it properly.
Oh, you're right. For auth settings currently only protocol blocks work. It was
a bit too much trouble to mak
Timo,
On 5/31/10 5:34 PM, "Brandon Davidson" wrote:
>
> Still not sure why it's not proxying though. The config looks good but it's
> still using PAM even for the external IP.
I played with subnet masks instead of IPs and using remote instead of local,
as well as setting auth_cache_size = 0, bu
Timo,
On 5/31/10 5:09 PM, "Timo Sirainen" wrote:
>
> Right .. it doesn't work exactly like that I guess. Or I don't remember :)
> Easiest to test with:
>
> doveconf -f lip=128.223.142.138 -n
That looks better:
[r...@cc-popmap7 ~]# doveconf -f lip=128.223.142.138 -h |grep -B1 -A7 passdb
}
pass
On 1.6.2010, at 0.59, Brandon Davidson wrote:
> Interestingly enough, if I run 'doveconf -n' it doesn't seem to be retaining
> the order I specified. The local section is dropped down to the very end:
Right .. it doesn't work exactly like that I guess. Or I don't remember :)
Easiest to test with
Timo,
On 5/31/10 4:36 PM, "Timo Sirainen" wrote:
>
> The passdbs and userdbs are checked in the order they're defined. You could
> add them at the bottom. Or probably more easily:
>
> local 128.223.143.138 {
> passdb {
> driver = sql
> args = ..
> }
>
> passdb {
> driver = pam
>
On 1.6.2010, at 0.30, Brandon Davidson wrote:
> May 31 16:20:42 cc-popmap7 dovecot: auth: Fatal: No passdbs specified in
> configuration file. PLAIN mechanism needs one
Hmm. Maybe this check should check also the local etc. blocks..
> So I added a global passdb/userdb:
The passdbs and userdbs a
Timo,
On 5/31/10 4:13 PM, "Timo Sirainen" wrote:
> You need to put the other passdb/userdb to the external IP:
>
> local 1.2.3.4 {
>> userdb {
>> driver = passwd
>> }
>> passdb {
>> driver = sql
>> args = /etc/dovecot/proxy-sqlite.conf
>> }
>
> }
>
It still doesn't seem to work. I tried t
On 31.5.2010, at 23.59, Brandon Davidson wrote:
You need to put the other passdb/userdb to the external IP:
local 1.2.3.4 {
> userdb {
> driver = passwd
> }
> passdb {
> driver = sql
> args = /etc/dovecot/proxy-sqlite.conf
> }
}
> Even if the alternate passdb worked, how would I get it to co
Timo,
On 5/31/10 6:04 AM, "Timo Sirainen" wrote:
> Well .. maybe you could use separate services. Have the proxy listen on
> public IP and the backend listen on localhost. Then you can do:
>
> local_ip 127.0.0.1 {
> passdb {
> ..
> }
> }
>
> and things like that. I think it would work,
On 31.5.2010, at 22.31, stefan novak wrote:
> is this proxy working for lmtp too?
Not yet, but it's probably less than 50 lines of code.
> is there a roadmap when this will
> be released and considered as stable?
Hopefully by the time v2.0.0 is released. It should already be usable with two
pr
this feature sounds very interesting...
is this proxy working for lmtp too? is there a roadmap when this will
be released and considered as stable?
On ma, 2010-05-31 at 05:02 -0700, Brandon Davidson wrote:
> > So instead of having separate proxies and mail servers, have only hybrids
> > everywhere? I guess it would almost work, except proxy_maybe isn't yet
> > compatible with director. That's actually a bit annoying to implement.. You
> > coul
Timo,
After straightening out some issues with Axel's spec file, I'm back to
poking at this.
On 5/25/10 3:14 PM, "Timo Sirainen" wrote:
> So instead of having separate proxies and mail servers, have only hybrids
> everywhere? I guess it would almost work, except proxy_maybe isn't yet
> compatibl
On 25.5.2010, at 20.32, Brad Davidson wrote:
> I have some questions
> about the suggested configuration, as well as the current
> implementation.
>
> * Does this work for POP3 as well as IMAP?
Yes.
> * Is there any reason not to use all 12 of our servers as proxies as
> well as mailbox servers
On 19.5.2010, at 16.16, luben karavelov wrote:
> On Wed, 19 May 2010 10:51:06 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>> The company here in Italy didn't really like such idea, so I thought
> about
>> making it more transparent and simpler to manage. The result is a new
>> "director" service, which does basi
Timo,
> -Original Message-
> From: dovecot-bounces+brandond=uoregon@dovecot.org
[mailto:dovecot-
>
> The company here in Italy didn't really like such idea, so I thought
about
> making it more transparent and simpler to manage. The result is a new
> "director" service, which does basi
On Wed, 19 May 2010 10:51:06 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> The company here in Italy didn't really like such idea, so I thought
about
> making it more transparent and simpler to manage. The result is a new
> "director" service, which does basically the same thing, except without
SQL
> database. Th
On 19.5.2010, at 13.09, Cor Bosman wrote:
> I guess one of my first questions is, not just how to handle failure of
> proxies, but also failure of whatever server the proxy sends you to. We've
> talked about that before, that the proxy could for instance fall back to
> itself as the 'final serv
As http://wiki.dovecot.org/NFS describes, the main problem with NFS has always
been caching problems. One NFS client changes two files, but another NFS client
sees only one of the changes, which Dovecot then assumes is caused by
corruption.
The recommended solution has always been to redirect t
24 matches
Mail list logo
