On 4/11/2009 10:05 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>> Would it be possible to do both? For example, if I'm troubleshooting a
>> particular problem, I might like to temporarily dump all warn and err
>> messages from dovecot to separate files - but I'd still like these to go
>> to my main syslogger too...
>
On Sun, 2009-04-12 at 14:08, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-04-12 at 13:56 +1000, Noel Butler wrote:
> > > Hmm. I just realized. Once I implement LMTP server, it needs to read the
> > > same settings as deliver. And perhaps it also needs some of its own
> > > settings?.. So I'm thinking that
On Sun, 2009-04-12 at 13:56 +1000, Noel Butler wrote:
> > Hmm. I just realized. Once I implement LMTP server, it needs to read the
> > same settings as deliver. And perhaps it also needs some of its own
> > settings?.. So I'm thinking that the whole protocol lda {} section
> > should go away in dov
On Sun, 2009-04-12 at 13:45, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>
> Hmm. I just realized. Once I implement LMTP server, it needs to read the
> same settings as deliver. And perhaps it also needs some of its own
> settings?.. So I'm thinking that the whole protocol lda {} section
> should go away in dovecot-ex
On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 14:01 -0400, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> deliver is the binary name. but it's configured inside protocol lda {}
> section. This is getting annoying, any thoughts on what would be a good
> unifying name?
Hmm. I just realized. Once I implement LMTP server, it needs to read the
same
On Fri, 2009-04-10 at 07:40 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
> Reading the Logging page on the wiki, it mentions if you don't want to
> use your system syslogger, you can specify different log paths...
>
> Would it be possible to do both? For example, if I'm troubleshooting a
> particular problem, I m
On 4/9/2009, Timo Sirainen (t...@iki.fi) wrote:
> Yeah. That's because all logging is done via master process, which
> logs only to one log (and one info log). deliver however doesn't log
> via master, because it's executed independently.
Hmmm...
Reading the Logging page on the wiki, it mentions
On Fri, 2009-04-10 at 07:57 +1000, Noel Butler wrote:
> > > protocol imap {
> > > ...
> > > log_path = /var/log/imap.log
> > > info_log_path = /var/log/imap.log
> > > }
> > > protocol pop3 {
> > > ...
> > > log_path = /var/log/pop3.log
> > > info_log_path = /var/log/pop3.log
> > > }
> >
On Fri, 2009-04-10 at 07:42, Noel Butler wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-04-09 at 21:57, Charles Marcus wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> > Extrapolating from your example, I can I just:
> >
> > protocol imap {
> > ...
> > log_path = /var/log/imap.log
> > info_log_path = /var/log/imap.log
> > }
> > protocol pop
On Thu, 2009-04-09 at 21:57, Charles Marcus wrote:
>
> Extrapolating from your example, I can I just:
>
> protocol imap {
> ...
> log_path = /var/log/imap.log
> info_log_path = /var/log/imap.log
> }
> protocol pop3 {
> ...
> log_path = /var/log/pop3.log
> info_log_path = /var/log/p
On Thu, 09 Apr 2009, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 4/9/2009 7:46 AM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
> >> I like this idea (of splitting the logging)...
> >
> > As do I and many others.
> >
> > You could do this with syslog(-ng), or you could just specify the log_path
> > and info_log_path variables in dovecot
On 4/9/2009 7:46 AM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
>> I like this idea (of splitting the logging)...
>
> As do I and many others.
>
> You could do this with syslog(-ng), or you could just specify the log_path
> and info_log_path variables in dovecot.conf. For example, in my protocol lda
> {} declaration,
On Thu, 09 Apr 2009, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 4/8/2009, Tom Metro (tmetro+dove...@vl.com) wrote:
> > I ended up splitting them up so that I could have each logging to
> > different places (IMAP to its own file, as it doesn't relate to mail
> > delivery),
>
> I like this idea (of splitting the l
On 4/8/2009, Tom Metro (tmetro+dove...@vl.com) wrote:
> I ended up splitting them up so that I could have each logging to
> different places (IMAP to its own file, as it doesn't relate to mail
> delivery),
I like this idea (of splitting the logging)...
Maybe this would be a good thing to be able
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Timo Sirainen wrote:
c) dovecot-lda binary, protocol lda {}
e) dovecot-mda binary, protocol mda {}
c) and e) choices also makes me think if e.g. imap and imap-login should
be called dovecot-imap and dovecot-imap-login instead
Timo Sirainen wrote:
deliver is the binary name. but it's configured inside protocol lda {}
section. This is getting annoying, any thoughts on what would be a good
unifying name?
I hope you didn't intend such a bikeshed discussion :)
c) dovecot-lda binary, protocol lda {}
This is perfectly
Timo Sirainen wrote:
deliver is the binary name. but it's configured inside protocol lda {}
section. This is getting annoying, any thoughts on what would be a good
unifying name?
c) dovecot-lda binary, protocol lda {}
I'm in favor of this ... outside of dovecot, explicitly saying dovecot is
i
On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 19:32 -0400, Tom Metro wrote:
> I found the combination of configuration for IMAP and LDA to be a bit
> unnatural as well, with little to no overlap between the two. And so I
> ended up splitting them up so that I could have each logging to
> different places (IMAP to its o
Daniel L. Miller wrote:
"deliver" has nothing to do with the listening daemons. So having the
"lda" configuration in the dovecot.conf file might be inappropriate - I
would suggest splitting that off to a "dovecot-lda.conf" file (or
whatever you change the delivery agent name to).
I found the
On Thu, 2009-04-09 at 08:29 +1000, Noel Butler wrote:
> > Another thing I was thinking about previously was that in process lists
> > they were prefixed with dovecot/. So the binary names could be lda,
> > imap-login, etc. but they'd show up in process lists as dovecot/lda,
> > dovecot/imap-login,
On Thu, 2009-04-09 at 08:05, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> Another thing I was thinking about previously was that in process lists
> they were prefixed with dovecot/. So the binary names could be lda,
> imap-login, etc. but they'd show up in process lists as dovecot/lda,
> dovecot/imap-login, etc.
>
Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 14:38 -0700, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Having a consistent name prefix for all the processes sounds nice - but
then you'd stick out as the exception to typical multi-process server
names (like Postfix's master, smtpd, cleanup, etc.). Is it a Good Thi
On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 14:38 -0700, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
> Having a consistent name prefix for all the processes sounds nice - but
> then you'd stick out as the exception to typical multi-process server
> names (like Postfix's master, smtpd, cleanup, etc.). Is it a Good Thing
> to deviate fro
On mer., avr 08, 2009, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
> Timo Sirainen wrote:
>> deliver is the binary name. but it's configured inside protocol lda {}
>> section. This is getting annoying, any thoughts on what would be a good
>> unifying name?
>>
>> a) deliver binary, protocol deliver {}
>>
>> b) lda bi
Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
Charles Marcus wrote:
heh... well, they would soon enough...
Seriously though... why call it a 'local delivery agent', when its
really more than that? Local suggests local/system users, and dovecot
delivery agent works fine for both local and virtual users. Postfi
Timo Sirainen wrote:
deliver is the binary name. but it's configured inside protocol lda {}
section. This is getting annoying, any thoughts on what would be a good
unifying name?
a) deliver binary, protocol deliver {}
b) lda binary, protocol lda {}
c) dovecot-lda binary, protocol lda {}
d) md
Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 4/8/2009, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI (edua...@kalinowski.com.br) wrote:
>
>> It's local because it stores e-mails somewhere in the local filesystem
>> hierarchy, instead of sending it to a remote machine via SMTP (or any
>> other protocol).
>>
>
> But thats not the gene
On 4/8/2009, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI (edua...@kalinowski.com.br) wrote:
> It's local because it stores e-mails somewhere in the local filesystem
> hierarchy, instead of sending it to a remote machine via SMTP (or any
> other protocol).
But thats not the generally accepted meaning of local in context
Charles Marcus wrote:
> heh... well, they would soon enough...
>
> Seriously though... why call it a 'local delivery agent', when its
> really more than that? Local suggests local/system users, and dovecot
> delivery agent works fine for both local and virtual users. Postfix
> calls its local deliv
On 4/8/2009 11:16 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>>> Me. It makes my code ugly. It makes writing to wiki difficult when you
>>> never know if you should call it deliver or lda. Basically there's no
>>> consistency, which is annoying.
>> How about dda (dovecot delivery agent)?
> No one's going to have a
Jonathan wrote:
Timo Sirainen wrote:
deliver is the binary name. but it's configured inside protocol lda {}
section. This is getting annoying, any thoughts on what would be a good
unifying name?
c) dovecot-lda binary, protocol lda {}
I'd vote for C as well.
++c
\\||/
Rod
--
On Apr 8, 2009, at 6:01 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 4/7/2009, Timo Sirainen (t...@iki.fi) wrote:
Me. It makes my code ugly. It makes writing to wiki difficult when
you
never know if you should call it deliver or lda. Basically there's no
consistency, which is annoying.
How about dda (dovec
On 4/7/2009, Timo Sirainen (t...@iki.fi) wrote:
> Me. It makes my code ugly. It makes writing to wiki difficult when you
> never know if you should call it deliver or lda. Basically there's no
> consistency, which is annoying.
How about dda (dovecot delivery agent)?
--
Best regards,
Charles
>
> My plan was to keep it working as protocol lda {} in any case for v1.x
> and drop it in v2.0 when there are probably going to be other
> configuration changes.
>
Renaming it at a major version change makes the most sense since an admin will
have to test and fix config files anyway.
signat
Timo Sirainen wrote:
> deliver is the binary name. but it's configured inside protocol lda {}
> section. This is getting annoying, any thoughts on what would be a good
> unifying name?
>
> c) dovecot-lda binary, protocol lda {}
I'd vote for C as well.
On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 07:51 +1000, Noel Butler wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 04:01, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>
> > deliver is the binary name. but it's configured inside protocol lda {}
> > section. This is getting annoying, any thoughts on what would be a good
> > unifying name?
> >
>
> annoying?
On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 04:01, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> deliver is the binary name. but it's configured inside protocol lda {}
> section. This is getting annoying, any thoughts on what would be a good
> unifying name?
>
annoying? who complains? I suspect a negligible number of people.
> a) deliv
Timo Sirainen wrote:
deliver is the binary name.
a) deliver binary, protocol deliver {}
The problem I have with the deliver name in general is that there is a
pre-existing LDA project[1] with the same name, and even within the
scope of the Dovecot mailing list, it isn't a unique term, so it
deliver is the binary name. but it's configured inside protocol lda {}
section. This is getting annoying, any thoughts on what would be a good
unifying name?
a) deliver binary, protocol deliver {}
b) lda binary, protocol lda {}
c) dovecot-lda binary, protocol lda {}
d) mda binary, protocol mda
39 matches
Mail list logo
