On 23/08/2012 21:49, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On 23.8.2012, at 23.26, Warren Baker wrote:
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
On 24.8.2012, at 14.18, Matthew Powell wrote:
> On 2012-08-24, at 7.01, Jerry wrote:
>
>> I would personally recommend supporting it. If history teaches us
>> anything, it is that sooner or later, and usually sooner, someone will
>> require that block. Being prepared for it in advance would seem
Am 24.08.2012 13:18, schrieb Matthew Powell:
> On 2012-08-24, at 7.01, Jerry wrote:
>
>> I would personally recommend supporting it. If history teaches us
>> anything, it is that sooner or later, and usually sooner, someone will
>> require that block. Being prepared for it in advance would seem
On 2012-08-24, at 7.01, Jerry wrote:
> I would personally recommend supporting it. If history teaches us
> anything, it is that sooner or later, and usually sooner, someone will
> require that block. Being prepared for it in advance would seem like
> the prudent thing to do.
I wonder whether it
On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 10:10:42 +0200
Warren Baker articulated:
> Yeah as others have mentioned - also not sure whether it is worth the
> effort to support IPv6's 'private' network (fc00::/7)?
> I havent seen anyone making use of this for their v6 enabled sites but
> others may have input here.
I wo
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Timo Sirainen said the following on 23/08/12 22:49:
>> Is there a reason why 172.16.0.0/12 was left out of the change ^^ ?
> Is it actually used? :)
YES!
I have a big customer (400 PCs) with 172.16.0.0/16 internal network and a
subnet of 192.168.0.0
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12-08-23 4:49 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On 23.8.2012, at 23.26, Warren Baker wrote:
>
>> 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/dovec
On 23.8.2012, at 23.26, Warren Baker wrote:
> 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 ^^ ?
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 14.8.2012, at 11.18, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>> As Timo says, Dovecot tries to be clever and coalesce packets from checking
>> multiple folders, but from memory there are limitations on this if you have
>> multiple *accounts*? I think the hash is per email address and per IP ?
>
> Yes, doesn't
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> Yes, doesn't help with multiple accounts, because the hashed username is
> different (no IP). I guess this could be changed to be per IP just as well. I
> think I wondered about which one to use previously but didn't see any point
> in cho
On 14.8.2012, at 11.04, Ed W wrote:
> - Then there is tcp keepalive. Does Dovecot enable these? (Sorry, I should
> look in the code...).
Yes.
> However, applications which enable it (eg optional in SSH) will trigger a
> default (I think) 75 second network packet
It's something like 2 hours
On 10/08/2012 10:25, Timo Sirainen wrote:
how does help me "save battery" if i have a folder-structure
maintained by sieve if i do not get my new mails?
If you open 10 connections to IMAP server and will IDLE on them - your phone
will wake up to reply for ping in every of that 10 connections.
I
10.08.2012 16:57, Reindl Harald пишет:
surely IT IS an argument
on a non-iPhone you can chosse what is important
your agrumentation is even one argument more against iPhone
If we now talking about android vs iPhone now... Imagine Android default
email client. It have no many features, that iPho
Am 10.08.2012 11:21, schrieb Sergey S. Kovalev:
>> and that is why K9 on android let you select which folders
>> are relevant for you on the mobile and which should be
>> completly ignored and display the selected in "common inbox"
> This is not an argument. You can have hundred of folders sorte
10.08.2012 16:25, Timo Sirainen пишет:
how does help me "save battery" if i have a folder-structure
maintained by sieve if i do not get my new mails?
If you open 10 connections to IMAP server and will IDLE on them - your phone
will wake up to reply for ping in every of that 10 connections.
Imag
Hi,
On 10-Aug-12 4:48, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Related question that came to my mind: Does anyone know if XAPPLEPUSHSERVICE
feature can be implemented by any server, or does it require cooperation
between the server and the mobile network operator? I'm guessing the latter..
the Apple push serv
On 10.8.2012, at 12.21, Sergey S. Kovalev wrote:
>>> I think that battery life is the reason, why this feature is not implemented
>>> in iPhone. It will use only one IMAP connection
>> so it is not "it's IMAP limitation"
> As I told - IMAP limitation is to control only one folder.
Assuming NOTIFY
10.08.2012 15:59, Reindl Harald пишет:
Am 10.08.2012 10:46, schrieb Sergey S. Kovalev:
10.08.2012 15:16, Reindl Harald пишет:
i have a Android with K9, a lot of folders where messages are stored
by sieve-scirpts and on my phone i can actively select which folders
should be used for push
Sure,
Am 10.08.2012 10:46, schrieb Sergey S. Kovalev:
> 10.08.2012 15:16, Reindl Harald пишет:
>> i have a Android with K9, a lot of folders where messages are stored
>> by sieve-scirpts and on my phone i can actively select which folders
>> should be used for push
>>
> Sure, it can do it in two ways: op
10.08.2012 15:16, Reindl Harald пишет:
Am 10.08.2012 09:08, schrieb Sergey S. Kovalev:
iPhone will not notify for new mail in any folder, except INBOX - it's IMAP
limitation.
IMAP IDLE monitor only one selected folder.
If you need notifying of new mail in copule of mail folders you shold look
Am 10.08.2012 09:08, schrieb Sergey S. Kovalev:
> iPhone will not notify for new mail in any folder, except INBOX - it's IMAP
> limitation.
> IMAP IDLE monitor only one selected folder.
> If you need notifying of new mail in copule of mail folders you shold look
> for ActiveSync realization.
>
On 10.8.2012, at 9.31, Robin wrote:
> On 8/9/2012 11:26 PM, Luigi Rosa wrote:
>> I used K-9 client on Android for one year with push, but I had to remove
>> it and go back to integrated email client because it drained the battery.
>
> It sounds like "push" was really implemented as a poll.
Dovec
Am 10.08.2012 09:08, schrieb Sergey S. Kovalev:
> On small mailboxes it's z-push and tine20 for example - they can use
> IMAP server as backend.
z-push works nice here with android, also the new horde beta has now
calender, abook, notes, mail sync
--
Best Regards
MfG Robert Schetterer
10.08.2012 09:44, dove...@noboost.org пишет:
Hi All,
Probably a very common question now days.
I'd like to configure our iPhones at work to go directly to my dovecot
server (currently dovecot-2.0.9-2.el6_1.1.x86_64). Using the IMAP IDLE
(push email) protocol.
Has anyone successfully deployed th
Am 10.08.2012 08:26, schrieb Luigi Rosa:
> dove...@noboost.org said the following on 10/08/2012 04:44:
>
>> Probably a very common question now days.
>> I'd like to configure our iPhones at work to go directly to my dovecot
>> server (currently dovecot-2.0.9-2.el6_1.1.x86_64). Using the IMAP IDLE
On 8/9/2012 11:26 PM, Luigi Rosa wrote:
I used K-9 client on Android for one year with push, but I had to remove
it and go back to integrated email client because it drained the battery.
It sounds like "push" was really implemented as a poll.
=R=
dove...@noboost.org said the following on 10/08/2012 04:44:
Probably a very common question now days.
I'd like to configure our iPhones at work to go directly to my dovecot
server (currently dovecot-2.0.9-2.el6_1.1.x86_64). Using the IMAP IDLE
(push email) protocol.
I used K-9 client on Androi
Related question that came to my mind: Does anyone know if XAPPLEPUSHSERVICE
feature can be implemented by any server, or does it require cooperation
between the server and the mobile network operator? I'm guessing the latter..
Hi All,
Probably a very common question now days.
I'd like to configure our iPhones at work to go directly to my dovecot
server (currently dovecot-2.0.9-2.el6_1.1.x86_64). Using the IMAP IDLE
(push email) protocol.
Has anyone successfully deployed this? If yes, did you have to use an
app from the
31 matches
Mail list logo
