On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Timo Sirainen t...@iki.fi wrote:
On 2.7.2012, at 19.12, Kaya Saman wrote:
what's really weird is that if I keep increasing the Cache TTL and
Cache size, the speed of transfer starts dropping.
I think it may just be a coincidence that changing cache values
On 3.7.2012, at 9.38, Kaya Saman wrote:
So if I look at a different authentication mechanism say LDAP would it
improve performance?
I doubt authentication has anything to do with why Outlook downloads mails
slowly.
But you could configure Outlook to use plaintext authentication instead of
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Timo Sirainen t...@iki.fi wrote:
On 3.7.2012, at 9.38, Kaya Saman wrote:
So if I look at a different authentication mechanism say LDAP would it
improve performance?
I doubt authentication has anything to do with why Outlook downloads mails
slowly.
But you
On 3 Jul 2012, at 07:46, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On 3.7.2012, at 9.38, Kaya Saman wrote:
So if I look at a different authentication mechanism say LDAP would it
improve performance?
I doubt authentication has anything to do with why Outlook downloads mails
slowly.
But you could configure
Den 03.07.2012 08:58, skrev Kaya Saman:
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Timo Sirainen t...@iki.fi wrote:
On 3.7.2012, at 9.38, Kaya Saman wrote:
So if I look at a different authentication mechanism say LDAP would it
improve performance?
I doubt authentication has anything to do with why
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 8:07 AM, Arne K. Haaje a...@drlinux.no wrote:
Den 03.07.2012 08:58, skrev Kaya Saman:
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Timo Sirainen t...@iki.fi wrote:
On 3.7.2012, at 9.38, Kaya Saman wrote:
So if I look at a different authentication mechanism say LDAP would it
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 7:59 AM, J E Lyon
role.dovecot-read...@jlassocs.com wrote:
On 3 Jul 2012, at 07:46, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On 3.7.2012, at 9.38, Kaya Saman wrote:
So if I look at a different authentication mechanism say LDAP would it
improve performance?
I doubt authentication has
On 3 Jul 2012, at 08:12, Kaya Saman wrote:
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 7:59 AM, J E Lyon
role.dovecot-read...@jlassocs.com wrote:
On 3 Jul 2012, at 07:46, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On 3.7.2012, at 9.38, Kaya Saman wrote:
So if I look at a different authentication mechanism say LDAP would it
On 2012-07-03 3:12 AM, Kaya Saman kayasa...@gmail.com wrote:
However this is a clean server with plenty of space left on the pool
allocated for mail and it's additionally using ZFS too.
What OS? ZFS implementation/version? How is mail stored (maildir? mbox?)
While I don't think this is your
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Charles Marcus
cmar...@media-brokers.com wrote:
On 2012-07-03 3:12 AM, Kaya Saman kayasa...@gmail.com wrote:
However this is a clean server with plenty of space left on the pool
allocated for mail and it's additionally using ZFS too.
What OS? ZFS
On 3 Jul 2012, at 11:51, Kaya Saman wrote:
Yeah, it seems to be M$ implementation of IMAP. I don't think that
there's anything anyone can do Outlook seems to wait after each
transmission (found using Wireshark).
Is the client syncing more than it has to? I mean, putting aside the delays
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:57 AM, J E Lyon
role.dovecot-read...@jlassocs.com wrote:
On 3 Jul 2012, at 11:51, Kaya Saman wrote:
Yeah, it seems to be M$ implementation of IMAP. I don't think that
there's anything anyone can do Outlook seems to wait after each
transmission (found using
Am 03.07.2012 13:00, schrieb Kaya Saman:
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:57 AM, J E Lyon
role.dovecot-read...@jlassocs.com wrote:
On 3 Jul 2012, at 11:51, Kaya Saman wrote:
Yeah, it seems to be M$ implementation of IMAP. I don't think that
there's anything anyone can do Outlook seems to wait
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Kaya Saman kayasa...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Charles Marcus
cmar...@media-brokers.com wrote:
On 2012-07-03 3:12 AM, Kaya Saman kayasa...@gmail.com wrote:
However this is a clean server with plenty of space left on the pool
allocated
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Robert Schetterer
rob...@schetterer.org wrote:
Am 03.07.2012 13:00, schrieb Kaya Saman:
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:57 AM, J E Lyon
role.dovecot-read...@jlassocs.com wrote:
On 3 Jul 2012, at 11:51, Kaya Saman wrote:
Yeah, it seems to be M$ implementation of
Am 03.07.2012 13:32, schrieb Kaya Saman:
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Kaya Saman kayasa...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Charles Marcus
cmar...@media-brokers.com wrote:
On 2012-07-03 3:12 AM, Kaya Saman kayasa...@gmail.com wrote:
However this is a clean server with
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Robert Schetterer
rob...@schetterer.org wrote:
Am 03.07.2012 13:32, schrieb Kaya Saman:
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Kaya Saman kayasa...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Charles Marcus
cmar...@media-brokers.com wrote:
On 2012-07-03 3:12
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Kaya Saman kayasa...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Robert Schetterer
rob...@schetterer.org wrote:
Am 03.07.2012 13:32, schrieb Kaya Saman:
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Kaya Saman kayasa...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:37
On 3 Jul 2012, at 12:32, Kaya Saman wrote:
Ok now probably related to this is that some folders are not able to copy??
While dragging one folder from Outlook PST to the Dovecot IMAP server
in Outlook 2010, the transfer keeps bombing out?
In the logs all I see are:
: Error:
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 1:03 PM, J E Lyon
role.dovecot-read...@jlassocs.com wrote:
On 3 Jul 2012, at 12:32, Kaya Saman wrote:
Ok now probably related to this is that some folders are not able to copy??
While dragging one folder from Outlook PST to the Dovecot IMAP server
in Outlook 2010, the
[...]
That's not something as simple as permissions on the server end, is it?
I have my Maildir and parent folder permissions setup as:
rwx-- mail_user:mail_user
This should be ok shouldn't it or would I need to use rwxrwx- ??
By default it is created as stated at top of posting.
On 3 Jul 2012, at 13:11, Kaya Saman wrote:
It is Maildir I am using, checked permissions - they're all ok. Yeah
would be cur When connecting to this, do I need to put something
like Inbox or INBOX as the mail root folder?
I remember historically one needed to do that, however, with
On 3 Jul 2012, at 13:20, Kaya Saman wrote:
[...]
That's not something as simple as permissions on the server end, is it?
I have my Maildir and parent folder permissions setup as:
rwx-- mail_user:mail_user
I don't know what is strictly necessary, but I actually use rwxrws--- for
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 1:21 PM, J E Lyon
role.dovecot-read...@jlassocs.com wrote:
On 3 Jul 2012, at 13:11, Kaya Saman wrote:
It is Maildir I am using, checked permissions - they're all ok. Yeah
would be cur When connecting to this, do I need to put something
like Inbox or INBOX as the
Hi,
though this is a bit of a side question, has anybody had an issue
while running Outlook 2010 with Dovecot?
The reason why I am asking is that I have setup a Dovecot 2.1.7 server
on FreeBSD which works fantastically with Thunderbird but Outlook
seems to be twice as slow in transferring
On 02/07/2012 15:34, Kaya Saman wrote:
Hi,
though this is a bit of a side question, has anybody had an issue
while running Outlook 2010 with Dovecot?
Yes, as far as being an IMAP client Outlook 2010 has not been any good
for me, slow, hangs, various non-intuitive issues...
Thunderbird
Il 02/07/2012 16:34, Kaya Saman ha scritto:
Hi,
though this is a bit of a side question, has anybody had an issue
while running Outlook 2010 with Dovecot?
The reason why I am asking is that I have setup a Dovecot 2.1.7 server
on FreeBSD which works fantastically with Thunderbird but Outlook
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Giles Coochey gi...@coochey.net wrote:
On 02/07/2012 15:34, Kaya Saman wrote:
Hi,
though this is a bit of a side question, has anybody had an issue
while running Outlook 2010 with Dovecot?
Yes, as far as being an IMAP client Outlook 2010 has not been any
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Mailing List SVR
li...@svrinformatica.it wrote:
Il 02/07/2012 16:34, Kaya Saman ha scritto:
Hi,
though this is a bit of a side question, has anybody had an issue
while running Outlook 2010 with Dovecot?
The reason why I am asking is that I have setup a
Am 02.07.2012 16:34, schrieb Kaya Saman:
Hi,
though this is a bit of a side question, has anybody had an issue
while running Outlook 2010 with Dovecot?
The reason why I am asking is that I have setup a Dovecot 2.1.7 server
on FreeBSD which works fantastically with Thunderbird but Outlook
On 02/07/2012 15:51, Kaya Saman wrote:
Hi Nicola,
there is no specific difference apart from seeing many of these errors:
Jun 26 15:10:11 imap(user): Error: Index
/mail/AD_Mail//user/Maildir/.Archive/dovecot.index: Lost log for
seq=2 offset=77008
Jun 26 15:10:11 imap(user): Warning: fscking
On 02/07/2012 16:02, Giles Coochey wrote:
On 02/07/2012 15:51, Kaya Saman wrote:
Hi Nicola,
there is no specific difference apart from seeing many of these errors:
Jun 26 15:10:11 imap(user): Error: Index
/mail/AD_Mail//user/Maildir/.Archive/dovecot.index: Lost log for
seq=2 offset=77008
Jun
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Giles Coochey gi...@coochey.net wrote:
On 02/07/2012 16:02, Giles Coochey wrote:
On 02/07/2012 15:51, Kaya Saman wrote:
Hi Nicola,
there is no specific difference apart from seeing many of these errors:
Jun 26 15:10:11 imap(user): Error: Index
On 02/07/2012 16:21, Kaya Saman wrote:
Or perhaps try
auth_cache_size = 1024
To cache authentications.
--
Regards,
Giles Coochey, CCNA, CCNAS
NetSecSpec Ltd
+44 (0) 7983 877438
http://www.coochey.net
http://www.netsecspec.co.uk
gi...@coochey.net
Thanks Giles :-)
I think that has made
On 02/07/2012 16:22, Giles Coochey wrote:
The size is in KB. I'm afraid cache-timeout and the inner workings
would be something only Timo or the Source Code know :-)
http://wiki2.dovecot.org/Authentication/Caching
the TTL setting is in seconds - perhaps what you are looking for?
--
Regards,
though this is a bit of a side question, has anybody had an issue while
running Outlook 2010 with Dovecot?
No because i don't use that shit and enforce anyone not to do this.
Outlook is terrible and even worse with imap. It is not Dovecot fault and
have nothing to Dovecot.
Just replace
I prefer Alpine myself but try running that on Windows 7 (forced to at
work :-( ).
never needed but at least under windows XP it works fine.
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Giles Coochey gi...@coochey.net wrote:
On 02/07/2012 16:22, Giles Coochey wrote:
The size is in KB. I'm afraid cache-timeout and the inner workings
would be something only Timo or the Source Code know :-)
http://wiki2.dovecot.org/Authentication/Caching
the
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
though this is a bit of a side question, has anybody had an issue while
running Outlook 2010 with Dovecot?
No because i don't use that shit and enforce anyone not to do this.
Outlook is terrible and even
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 17:00:07 +0200
Robert Schetterer articulated:
Am 02.07.2012 16:34, schrieb Kaya Saman:
Hi,
though this is a bit of a side question, has anybody had an issue
while running Outlook 2010 with Dovecot?
The reason why I am asking is that I have setup a Dovecot 2.1.7
On 2012-07-02 11:39 AM, Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl
wrote:
though this is a bit of a side question, has anybody had an issue
while running Outlook 2010 with Dovecot?
No because i don't use that shit and enforce anyone not to do this.
Outlook is terrible and even worse with
Wojciech,
I believe you do recognize that this may be something that requires policy
changes to take effect.
Of course i do!
If you are not the one deciding with policy then state clearly that this
shit simply doesn't work, so if the policy is to use it, then the same
policy should state
Hi, must be your setup no Problems here with
Outlook 2010, sorry no time recent for analyse your posted config
I don't have any problems with it either. sounds like it could be a
networking problem. I have also heard on the Postfix list about some AV
programs causing problems.
If you don't
On 02/07/2012 16:54, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
Wojciech,
I believe you do recognize that this may be something that requires
policy changes to take effect.
Of course i do!
If you are not the one deciding with policy then state clearly that
this shit simply doesn't work, so if the policy is to
On Jul 2, 2012, at 10:54 AM, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
Wojciech,
I believe you do recognize that this may be something that requires policy
changes to take effect.
Of course i do!
If you are not the one deciding with policy then state clearly that this shit
simply doesn't work, so if the
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
Hi, must be your setup no Problems here with
Outlook 2010, sorry no time recent for analyse your posted config
I don't have any problems with it either. sounds like it could be a
networking problem. I
No policy can override truth and facts.
I'm not going to comment other than say that this sub-thread probably needs
to continue on:
alt.flames.anti-microsoft.linux.jihad
no. no jihad. No linux actually (i don't use linux).
That's fact.
If someone want to use outlook then fine, but should
Speaking of truth and facts, you've had a lot of advice here lately for someone
who clearly has never worked on anything but toy projects with users that
you're free to bully into submission. If you don't have something useful to
contribute, why not just keep it to yourself?
If you show me
It's not funny at all, using certain references as you like doing. I don't
remember when I last heard such words on this list.
What do you fear?
On Jul 2, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
Speaking of truth and facts, you've had a lot of advice here lately for
someone who clearly has never worked on anything but toy projects with users
that you're free to bully into submission. If you don't have something
useful to
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Giles Coochey gi...@coochey.net wrote:
On 02/07/2012 16:22, Giles Coochey wrote:
The size is in KB. I'm afraid cache-timeout and the inner workings
would be something only Timo or the Source Code know :-)
http://wiki2.dovecot.org/Authentication/Caching
the
On 07/02/2012 12:06 PM, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
No policy can override truth and facts.
I'm not going to comment other than say that this sub-thread probably
needs to continue on:
alt.flames.anti-microsoft.linux.jihad
no. no jihad. No linux actually (i don't use linux).
That's fact.
If
You're not necessarily wrong about Outlook vis-a-vis IMAP. You're very wrong
about how much power an email admin has in a real organization. Please take the
non-constructive flaming and cursing somewhere else, as others have suggested.
Still you can't improve trash program by better IMAP
Equivalents of all these can be presented the other way around against badly
configured free software solutions.
Fortunately not microsoft sets open standard and have to conform to them
or there will be microsoft only mail. And more fortunately not these
admins.
OK response from exchange
Am 02.07.2012 17:43, schrieb Kaya Saman:
Good but not good enough especially when some of our users have round
20GB of PST file :-(
please describe where is the relation between a pst file and imap
pst files are local
after all having 20 GB PST File is a user Problem ever, tell them to
split
On 2 July 2012 13:21, Robert Schetterer rob...@schetterer.org wrote:
Am 02.07.2012 17:43, schrieb Kaya Saman:
Good but not good enough especially when some of our users have round
20GB of PST file :-(
please describe where is the relation between a pst file and imap
pst files are local
Am 02.07.2012 19:10, schrieb Wojciech Puchar:
Equivalents of all these can be presented the other way around against
badly configured free software solutions.
Fortunately not microsoft sets open standard and have to conform to them
or there will be microsoft only mail. And more fortunately
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 11:54:07 -0400
Charles Marcus articulated:
On 2012-07-02 11:39 AM, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
though this is a bit of a side question, has anybody had an issue
while running Outlook 2010 with Dovecot?
No because i don't use that shit and
On 02/07/2012 17:12, Kaya Saman wrote:
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Giles Coochey gi...@coochey.net wrote:
On 02/07/2012 16:22, Giles Coochey wrote:
The size is in KB. I'm afraid cache-timeout and the inner workings
would be something only Timo or the Source Code know :-)
On 2.7.2012, at 19.12, Kaya Saman wrote:
what's really weird is that if I keep increasing the Cache TTL and
Cache size, the speed of transfer starts dropping.
I think it may just be a coincidence that changing cache values appears to
help, and the real reason maybe being just that Dovecot got
Outlook is the client of Exchange , it can do smtp,imap,pop3 too
its sold as a solution, with os , server, auth system ,client , support
people etc
and that solution - as a common example - doesn't work.
There is no reason for M$ to make Qutlook fit in a perfect
imap client cause this would
finally some clear answer :)
Trying dovecot to improve outlook is like using gold to improve shit.
No matter how much gold is used, it will still stink.
I cannot understand that people.
On Tue, 3 Jul 2012, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On 2.7.2012, at 19.12, Kaya Saman wrote:
what's really weird is
Many companies require Outlook, and the fact is, as an EXCHANGE
client, Outlook works extremely well. I agree that as a standalone
Show me this.
I actually migrated many places OUT of this crap because it doesn't work,
with great success.
63 matches
Mail list logo
