day, January 09, 2007 12:49 PM
> To: Bron Gondwana
> Cc: Info Cyrus
> Subject: Re: Patches used at FastMail.FM
>
> Bron Gondwana wrote:
> > It's been a while since I posted our list of patches, and there have
> been
> > a couple of changes since then.
> >
>
Rob Mueller wrote:
Ok, I thought that 'post' pre-dated lmtp and was the IMAP function to
write a message into the folder.
i.e. a program like imapsync would need the 'p' permission to write
the messages, (but would need other permissions to check for messages,
set flags, etc)
I think the on
Rob Mueller wrote:
but this is in conflict with the the idea that in a large installation
of people who don't know each other the 'anyone' permission doesn't
make sense.
what is really desired for + addressing is to say that messages that
arrive via the lmtp interface are allowed to write to
Ok, I thought that 'post' pre-dated lmtp and was the IMAP function to
write a message into the folder.
i.e. a program like imapsync would need the 'p' permission to write the
messages, (but would need other permissions to check for messages, set
flags, etc)
I think the only way to add a mess
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Rob Mueller wrote:
but this is in conflict with the the idea that in a large installation of
people who don't know each other the 'anyone' permission doesn't make
sense.
what is really desired for + addressing is to say that messages that arrive
via the lmtp interface ar
but this is in conflict with the the idea that in a large installation of
people who don't know each other the 'anyone' permission doesn't make
sense.
what is really desired for + addressing is to say that messages that
arrive via the lmtp interface are allowed to write to all folders (not
ju
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Rob Mueller wrote:
the usual reason for allowing the "anyone" ACL is to allow for + addressing
to
work.
is there another way to do this?
The admin user can still set the anyone acl, it's just non-admin users can't
change/set it. The way we do this to allow + addressin
the usual reason for allowing the "anyone" ACL is to allow for +
addressing to
work.
is there another way to do this?
The admin user can still set the anyone acl, it's just non-admin users can't
change/set it. The way we do this to allow + addressing is when we create
the users top level f
On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 08:52:21 -0500, "Ken Murchison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> http://cyrus.brong.fastmail.fm/cyrus-plainsync-2.3.3.diff
>
> Why not just run 'sync_server -p 2' ? I believe that I added the 'p'
> option to all services for just this reason.
It didn't work in my testing for
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Ken Murchison wrote:
Disable "anyone" ACL
the usual reason for allowing the "anyone" ACL is to allow for + addressing to
work.
is there another way to do this?
in most cases I think that a global 'allow + addressing' config option is really
more appropriate then havi
On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 12:49:25 -0500, "Ken Murchison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Bron Gondwana wrote:
> > It's been a while since I posted our list of patches, and there have been
> > a couple of changes since then.
> >
> > I'm generating the site from a script and a bunch of patch description fil
Bron Gondwana wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 08:52:21 -0500, "Ken Murchison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
http://cyrus.brong.fastmail.fm/cyrus-plainsync-2.3.3.diff
Why not just run 'sync_server -p 2' ? I believe that I added the 'p'
option to all services for just this reason.
It didn't work in my
Bron Gondwana wrote:
It's been a while since I posted our list of patches, and there have been
a couple of changes since then.
I'm generating the site from a script and a bunch of patch description files
now, so I should be able to keep it up to date.
Feel free to use any of these patches, and
http://cyrus.brong.fastmail.fm/cyrus-plainsync-2.3.3.diff
Why not just run 'sync_server -p 2' ? I believe that I added the 'p'
option to all services for just this reason.
--
Kenneth Murchison
Systems Programmer
Project Cyrus Developer/Maintainer
Carnegie Mellon University
Cyrus Home Pa
Jeff and I have already discussed pushing out a 2.3 release soon -- as
soon as we iron out all of the wrinkles in our 2.3 deployment on campus.
We found a few small buglets in the IMAP proxy code that we didn't
expect. Either nobody else has a 2.3 Murder running, or they didn't
notice the random
On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 11:23:50 -0500, "Ken Murchison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Bron Gondwana wrote:
> > It's been a while since I posted our list of patches, and there have been
> > a couple of changes since then.
> >
> > I'm generating the site from a script and a bunch of patch description fil
On 08 Jan 2007, at 11:23, Ken Murchison wrote:
We found a few small buglets in the IMAP proxy code that we didn't
expect. Either nobody else has a 2.3 Murder running, or they
didn't notice the random (infrequent) core dumps.
We're (UMich) continuing to run 2.3 replicated backends with 2.2
Farzad FARID wrote:
king coredump.
I too wonder who runs Cyrus IMAP 2.3 Murder, because hardly anybody ever
answers my questions here and I have to reply to myself ;)
Our site is planning to migrate to the Murder setup. But I haven't
gotten to it yet. Currently we have about 41955 accounts
On Mon, 8 Jan 2007, Farzad FARID wrote:
Hi,
on 08.01.2007 17:23 Ken Murchison said the following:
Jeff and I have already discussed pushing out a 2.3 release soon -- as
soon as we iron out all of the wrinkles in our 2.3 deployment on campus.
We found a few small buglets in the IMAP proxy cod
Hi,
on 08.01.2007 17:23 Ken Murchison said the following:
>
> Jeff and I have already discussed pushing out a 2.3 release soon -- as
> soon as we iron out all of the wrinkles in our 2.3 deployment on campus.
>
> We found a few small buglets in the IMAP proxy code that we didn't
> expect. Either n
Ben Poliakoff wrote:
* Ken Murchison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20070108 08:34]:
Jeff and I have already discussed pushing out a 2.3 release soon -- as
soon as we iron out all of the wrinkles in our 2.3 deployment on campus.
We found a few small buglets in the IMAP proxy code that we didn't
expect.
* Ken Murchison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20070108 08:34]:
>
> Jeff and I have already discussed pushing out a 2.3 release soon -- as
> soon as we iron out all of the wrinkles in our 2.3 deployment on campus.
>
> We found a few small buglets in the IMAP proxy code that we didn't
> expect. Either no
Simon Matter wrote:
It's been a while since I posted our list of patches, and there have been
a couple of changes since then.
I'm generating the site from a script and a bunch of patch description
files
now, so I should be able to keep it up to date.
Feel free to use any of these patches, and
Bron Gondwana wrote:
It's been a while since I posted our list of patches, and there have been
a couple of changes since then.
I'm generating the site from a script and a bunch of patch description files
now, so I should be able to keep it up to date.
Feel free to use any of these patches, and
> It's been a while since I posted our list of patches, and there have been
> a couple of changes since then.
>
> I'm generating the site from a script and a bunch of patch description
> files
> now, so I should be able to keep it up to date.
>
>
> Feel free to use any of these patches, and Ken - f
25 matches
Mail list logo
