On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 04:53:26PM +0200, Eric Luyten via Info-cyrus wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> One of our users is getting 'Server error' feedback from the Roundcube
> plugin when trying to add a 213th rule.
>
> I fail to spot a hard coded limit in the Sieve source code. Is there
> something to that
Hello,
One of our users is getting 'Server error' feedback from the Roundcube
plugin when trying to add a 213th rule.
I fail to spot a hard coded limit in the Sieve source code. Is there
something to that extent or with similar effects ?
Thx,
Eric Luyten, Computing Centre VUB/ULB.
Cyrus
On Jun 25, 2007, at 7:19 AM, Rudy Gevaert wrote:
> Sorry for picking up this old thread again,but with the latest
> thunderbird I don't have this problem.
They fixed it on the tbird trunk.
--
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source
and other randomness
Jo Rhett wrote:
> Wolfgang Breyha wrote:
>> But it seems there was a change from 2.3.7 to 2.3.8 in handling legacy
>> flags.
>> At least a diff on lib/acl.c makes me think so. In 2.3.7 the flags
>> where added
>> "on-the-fly" and in 2.3.8 they are added permanently. If I'm right
>> that mean
What is "deleteright" set to on this server? You problem description
suggests that it's not set.
:wes
On 20 Apr 2007, at 05:50, Wolfgang Breyha wrote:
I don't know;-) Most of the mailboxes here have "lrswipkxtea" set. And
searching the source I found code in cmd_myrights, which adds "c"
an
Jo Rhett wrote:
Do we really have to write a script to loop through all
of the accounts and fix the ACLs for every folder?
Well if you find yourself needing to do this (I did) the following
script will save you a lot of time. This could possibly use improvement
to look for any write permissi
Wolfgang Breyha wrote:
But it seems there was a change from 2.3.7 to 2.3.8 in handling legacy flags.
At least a diff on lib/acl.c makes me think so. In 2.3.7 the flags where added
"on-the-fly" and in 2.3.8 they are added permanently. If I'm right that means
that I've to update all my ACLs to fix
Sebastian Hagedorn wrote, on 20.04.2007 11:00:
> I'm not sure I understand why. Are you saying that a 2.3.8 installed from
> scratch behaves differently than an upgraded one?
I don't know;-) Most of the mailboxes here have "lrswipkxtea" set. And
searching the source I found code in cmd_myrights,
--On 20. April 2007 10:46:49 +0200 Wolfgang Breyha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sebastian Hagedorn wrote, on 20.04.2007 10:00:
Hm, are there any other conditions necessary? Because I just tried TB 2
with our Cyrus 2.3.8 server and I was able to delete a message in my
INBOX just fine. I didn't ac
Sebastian Hagedorn wrote, on 20.04.2007 10:00:
> Hm, are there any other conditions necessary? Because I just tried TB 2
> with our Cyrus 2.3.8 server and I was able to delete a message in my INBOX
> just fine. I didn't actually check the protocol, so I can't see if TB did
> "myrights" and "geta
--On 19. April 2007 23:34:23 +0200 Wolfgang Breyha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I had troubles with cyrus 2.3.x and thunderbird 2.x. Thunderbird checks
the ACLs now and issues a "myrights" and "getacl" command. Since
thunderbird only checks RFC 2086 flags it disables &
Hi!
I had troubles with cyrus 2.3.x and thunderbird 2.x. Thunderbird checks the
ACLs now and issues a "myrights" and "getacl" command. Since thunderbird
only checks RFC 2086 flags it disables "DELETE" access since cyrus 2.3.x
reports the compatibility flags onl
At Thu, 30 Nov 2006 12:43:13 -0500,
Ken Murchison wrote:
>
> I just moved the Cyrus 2.3 code to the trunk of CVS and created a
> cyrus-imapd-2_2-tail branch to be used for bug fixes to the 2.2 code.
ACK! I really hate that upside-down branching scheme you guys use.
Every time you do
Hi,
I'm about to test Cyrus IMAPd 2.3 with murder and would like to know
where I can find some documentation and examples of configuration with
the new "unified" configuration.
Moreover, now that the proxy functionnality has been merged into the
normal daemons:
What services do I have to c
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Stupid question, but what *is* CONDSTORE? :)
http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc4551.txt
On Fri, 7 Jul 2006, Ken Murchison wrote:
David S. Madole wrote:
Ken Murchison wrote:
Is anyone actively using the CONDSTORE extension supported in Cyrus
2.3.x? I'm only aware o
On 2006-07-08 at 12:22 -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Stupid question, but what *is* CONDSTORE? :)
New extension, part of the IETF's LEMONADE working group's work to make
SMTP+IMAP more usable with small devices like mobile phones, with low or
expensive bandwidth and which disconnect a lot.
Eve
Stupid question, but what *is* CONDSTORE? :)
On Fri, 7 Jul 2006, Ken Murchison wrote:
David S. Madole wrote:
Ken Murchison wrote:
Is anyone actively using the CONDSTORE extension supported in Cyrus 2.3.x?
I'm only aware of one client that supports it, so I'm thinking the user
bas
On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 10:54:13AM -0400, Ken Murchison wrote:
> The reason I ask is that I want to push out a 2.3.7 release ASAP which
> contains a number of important bugfixes, but I've realized that the
> replication protocol doesn't have any support for the metadata that is
> used by CONDSTO
David S. Madole wrote:
Ken Murchison wrote:
Is anyone actively using the CONDSTORE extension supported in Cyrus
2.3.x? I'm only aware of one client that supports it, so I'm thinking
the user base is quite small.
The reason I ask is that I want to push out a 2.3.7 release
Ken Murchison wrote:
Is anyone actively using the CONDSTORE extension supported in Cyrus
2.3.x? I'm only aware of one client that supports it, so I'm thinking
the user base is quite small.
The reason I ask is that I want to push out a 2.3.7 release ASAP which
contains a number of
Is anyone actively using the CONDSTORE extension supported in Cyrus
2.3.x? I'm only aware of one client that supports it, so I'm thinking
the user base is quite small.
The reason I ask is that I want to push out a 2.3.7 release ASAP which
contains a number of important bugfixes
Hello,
We've been running Cyrus for well over a year now supporting over
30,000 email accounts. We use a Murder setup, with virtualdomain
support. We also use socketmap to insure the user exists during the
smtp session.
We were previously using 2.2.12 with very good luck. No real issues t
Scott Russell wrote:
Greets.
In Cyrus 2.3.1 I see the body test extension is now included which my
users will appreciate. It also appears that since Cyrus 2.1.16 many of
the sieve extensions have updated drafts. Having poked around the Cyrus
2.3.1 source and docs I have two questions:
1) Fo
Greets.
In Cyrus 2.3.1 I see the body test extension is now included which my
users will appreciate. It also appears that since Cyrus 2.1.16 many of
the sieve extensions have updated drafts. Having poked around the Cyrus
2.3.1 source and docs I have two questions:
1) For the extensions avail
Ken Murchison wrote on 15/12/2005 23:43:
> Cristian Livadaru wrote:
>
>>hmmm that won't realz solve my "problem" or what easy way do I have to
>>create a sieve script for all users ? some automated way to do so.
>
> You could look at the "auto create" patch that is floating around on the
> list.
Cristian Livadaru wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 02:56:15PM -0500, Ken Murchison wrote:
Andrew Morgan wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Cristian Livadaru wrote:
Hi,
does Cyrus 2.3 have the option for global sieve scripts?
As far as I can remember somebody sayd once in the mailinglist that this
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 02:56:15PM -0500, Ken Murchison wrote:
> Andrew Morgan wrote:
> >On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Cristian Livadaru wrote:
> >
> >>Hi,
> >>does Cyrus 2.3 have the option for global sieve scripts?
> >>As far as I can remember somebody sayd onc
Andrew Morgan wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Cristian Livadaru wrote:
Hi,
does Cyrus 2.3 have the option for global sieve scripts?
As far as I can remember somebody sayd once in the mailinglist that this
feature will be in cyrus 2.3
In changes.html, I see:
# The Sieve "include" ex
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Cristian Livadaru wrote:
Hi,
does Cyrus 2.3 have the option for global sieve scripts?
As far as I can remember somebody sayd once in the mailinglist that this
feature will be in cyrus 2.3
In changes.html, I see:
# The Sieve "include" extension is now supported.
Hi,
does Cyrus 2.3 have the option for global sieve scripts?
As far as I can remember somebody sayd once in the mailinglist that this
feature will be in cyrus 2.3
Regards, Cristian
--
Cristian Livadaru
--=[ http://www.livadaru.net/cristian ]=--
Cyrus Home Page: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Amos wrote:
WRT 2.3, IIRC, there was a feature such that deleting a message would
not physically delete the message but just hide it from the user. That
way a recovery wouldn't require pulling stuff off of tape (assuming the
message was there last time backups ran.) Am I re
WRT 2.3, IIRC, there was a feature such that deleting a message would
not physically delete the message but just hide it from the user.
That way a recovery wouldn't require pulling stuff off of tape
(assuming the message was there last time backups ran.) Am I
remembering this correctly? (I have
Jim Bartus wrote:
Ken Murchison wrote:
Roland Pope wrote:
Hi,
Does anyone have any idea when Cyrus-IMAPd 2.3 might be ready for
production release?
There is no scheduled date, nor anyone to create a release at this time.
Pardon, I'm new to the list, but what does "nor anyone to cre
Generally, the releases are done by whomever is the current lead Cyrus
developer employed by Carnegie Mellon. That position is now vacant,
since Derrick Brashear left for greener pastures.
If the code gets to a point where it can be considered stable enough
for a release prior to us hiring anoth
ernational, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.webinternational.net
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-info-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Bartus
> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 12:56 PM
> To: Ken Murchison
> Cc: Roland Pope; info-cyrus@lists.an
Ken Murchison wrote:
Roland Pope wrote:
Hi,
Does anyone have any idea when Cyrus-IMAPd 2.3 might be ready for
production release?
There is no scheduled date, nor anyone to create a release at this time.
Pardon, I'm new to the list, but what does "nor anyone to create" imply?
Where ca
Roland Pope wrote:
Hi,
Does anyone have any idea when Cyrus-IMAPd 2.3 might be ready for
production release?
There is no scheduled date, nor anyone to create a release at this time.
--
Kenneth Murchison Oceana Matrix Ltd.
Software Engineer 21 Princeton Place
716-662-8973 x26 Or
Hi,
Does anyone have any idea when Cyrus-IMAPd 2.3 might be ready for production
release?
Thanks
Roland
---
Cyrus Home Page: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus
Cyrus Wiki/FAQ: http://cyruswiki.andrew.cmu.edu
List Archives/Info: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus/mailing-list.html
Hi all,
currently I am trying to setup a Cyrus 2.3 testing environment using
the unified mupdate architecture. Since documentation on unified
mupdate is very scarce both in cyrus lists and cyrus documentation, I
would like to ask the following :
- What is the status of the code for unified
Quoting Erik de Zeeuw ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Is there any expected release date for Cyrus 2.3 ?
I've been meaning to ask about this myself.
> It seems to add interesting features, and I was
> thus wondering when it will hit our servers :)
>
> I would be interested to gi
Is there any expected release date for Cyrus 2.3 ?
It seems to add interesting features, and I was
thus wondering when it will hit our servers :)
I would be interested to give it a try, but was
wondering if it is still early alpha, or if it
is usable for real life testing.
Thanks,
Erik
Ken Murchison wrote:
Sergio Devojno Bruder wrote:
Attila Nagy wrote:
Hello,
(...) The unified approach seems to be simple. The client no longer
has to be redirected to the given backend using the proxyd, or
lmtpproxyd (previously called frontend), instead it can turn to any
of the backends and t
Sergio Devojno Bruder wrote:
Attila Nagy wrote:
Hello,
(...) The unified approach seems to be simple. The client no longer
has to be redirected to the given backend using the proxyd, or
lmtpproxyd (previously called frontend), instead it can turn to any of
the backends and the backend will know
Attila Nagy wrote:
Hello,
(...)
The unified approach seems to be simple. The client no longer has to be
redirected to the given backend using the proxyd, or lmtpproxyd
(previously called frontend), instead it can turn to any of the backends
and the backend will know how to deal with that connec
Thomas Vogt wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 03.11.2004, 16:20 -0500 schrieb Ken Murchison:
IMAP2, so IMAP3 can't access mailboxes on STOR1. Does this work?
No. You're talking about two levels of synchronization here, the
current Murder code only handles the following scenarios.
Standard/Unified Murder:
Attila Nagy wrote:
Ken Murchison wrote:
In a standard config, the mailboxes.db on each IMAP server only
contains In a unified config, the master mailboxes.db is located on
the MUPDATE In a replicated config, the master mailboxes.db is located
on the
Thanks a lot, this enlightened my mind.
Repli
Thomas Vogt wrote:
{mail.domain.com}
+-+ +-+ +-+ +-+
|IMAP1| |IMAP2| |IMAP3| |IMAP4|
+--+--+ +--+--+ +--+--+ +--+--+
||||
+--+--+ +--+--+ +--+--+ +--+--+
|STOR1| |STOR2| |STOR3| |STOR4|
+-+ +-+ +-+ +-+
Lets say,
Ken Murchison wrote:
In a standard config, the mailboxes.db on each IMAP server only contains
In a unified config, the master mailboxes.db is located on the MUPDATE
In a replicated config, the master mailboxes.db is located on the
Thanks a lot, this enlightened my mind.
Replicated Murder seems t
Am Mittwoch, den 03.11.2004, 16:20 -0500 schrieb Ken Murchison:
> > IMAP2, so IMAP3 can't access mailboxes on STOR1. Does this work?
>
> No. You're talking about two levels of synchronization here, the
> current Murder code only handles the following scenarios.
>
>
> Standard/Unified Murder:
>
Attila Nagy wrote:
Ken Murchison wrote:
Is replicated murder consists of multiple backend server groups which
has the same mailboxes? So murder will say that user.jsmith is on
server1 AND server2, instead of just saying it's on server1 OR server2?
Yes. Any machine in the Murder has local access
Ken Murchison wrote:
Is replicated murder consists of multiple backend server groups which
has the same mailboxes? So murder will say that user.jsmith is on
server1 AND server2, instead of just saying it's on server1 OR server2?
Yes. Any machine in the Murder has local access to any mailbox.
Hmm
Attila Nagy wrote:
Hello,
There are the following lines in the changelog:
"Added support for "unified" and "replicated" Murders. A Murder no
longer has to have discrete frontend and backend servers; any one
"unified" server can both proxy and serve local mailboxes (proxy
functionality in proxyd
Hello,
There are the following lines in the changelog:
"Added support for "unified" and "replicated" Murders. A Murder no
longer has to have discrete frontend and backend servers; any one
"unified" server can both proxy and serve local mailboxes (proxy
functionality in proxyd and lmtpproxyd has
I'm curious to find out how many sites have tested or are currently
using the 2.3 code, and in what type of configuration.
I already know of two sites which are using it because they need
features only available in 2.3 (one site is using a replicated Murder
and the other is using the new EXPUNG
Ken Murchison wrote:
I have recently started a Cyrus 2.3 branch which has several new
features, most notably:
A few people have asked me if this is the end of the 2.2 series. The
answer to this is no. There will be a 2.2.4 release and probably a few
other 2.2.x releases which will include
I have recently started a Cyrus 2.3 branch which has several new
features, most notably:
- Unified imapd/proxyd, lmtpd/lmtpproxyd. This completes the work
started in 2.2 (namely pop3d, nntpd) where one binary can both serve
local mailboxes and proxy to remote mailboxes. In fact, with the new
56 matches
Mail list logo
