Re: strange behaviour authenticating to IMAP server with squirrelmail

2017-10-09 Thread Vladislav Kurz
Dne Po 9. října 2017 13:25:12, Sebastian Hagedorn napsal(a): > MD5 + TLS is still better than plaintext + TLS, IMHO. It's true that MD5 in > itself doesn't do much good anymore, but I prefer it anyway. > > --On 9. Oktober 2017 um 11:47:46 +0100 Merlin Hartley > >

Re: strange behaviour authenticating to IMAP server with squirrelmail

2017-10-09 Thread Sebastian Hagedorn
MD5 + TLS is still better than plaintext + TLS, IMHO. It's true that MD5 in itself doesn't do much good anymore, but I prefer it anyway. --On 9. Oktober 2017 um 11:47:46 +0100 Merlin Hartley wrote: Why would you want to, you are already using TLS so what do you

Re: strange behaviour authenticating to IMAP server with squirrelmail

2017-10-09 Thread Merlin Hartley
Why would you want to, you are already using TLS so what do you expect to gain? plaintext+TLS md5 suffers from multiple inadequacies - so it seems pretty pointless to me. M -- Merlin Hartley Computer Officer MRC Mitochondrial Biology Unit Cambridge, CB2 0XY United Kingdom > On 8 Oct 2017, at

strange behaviour authenticating to IMAP server with squirrelmail

2017-10-08 Thread Walter H. via Info-cyrus
Hello, when setting in squirrelmail $imap_auth_mech = 'cram-md5'; or $imap_auth_mech = 'digest-md5'; then the following is logged in /etc/maillog Oct 8 14:59:41 imap-host imaps[2042]: accepted connection Oct 8 14:59:41 imap-host imaps[2042]: imapd:Loading DH parameters from file Oct 8

Re: Strange behaviour

2016-03-08 Thread Stephan via Info-cyrus
helps. Cheers, Nicola - Original message - From: "Stephan via Info-cyrus" <info-cyrus@lists.andrew.cmu.edu> To: Info Cyrus <info-cyrus@lists.andrew.cmu.edu> Subject: Strange behaviour Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2016 10:37:26 +0100 Hi, I have a problem with cyrus i

Re: Strange behaviour

2016-03-06 Thread Nicola Nye via Info-cyrus
lt;info-cyrus@lists.andrew.cmu.edu> To: Info Cyrus <info-cyrus@lists.andrew.cmu.edu> Subject: Strange behaviour Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2016 10:37:26 +0100 Hi, I have a problem with cyrus imapd 2.5.7 - I connect to it with two clients, both of which are turned off over night. The processes howeve

Strange behaviour

2016-03-05 Thread Stephan via Info-cyrus
Hi, I have a problem with cyrus imapd 2.5.7 - I connect to it with two clients, both of which are turned off over night. The processes however stay and if I start the clients again on the next morning, new processes get spawned instead of reusing the old ones. This continues till the limit

strange behaviour with cyrus-imap

2005-05-11 Thread Patrice
Hello , I have some troubles with cyrus. I have a test server which is ok and run fine cyrus-imap daemons (tru64 server) I installed the futur server (os tru64 5.1b + patchs ) and all things compiled fine . (sasl + cyrusimap) but I have a problem I haven't been able to soluce: I use

strange behaviour of quota with one user

2004-06-18 Thread Nicolas Schmitz
Hello, one of my user, who use 700Meg on the server, has a strange problem : when I increase his quota (over 4,2gig), Mozilla display the quota warn popup (saying 85% is used) whereas if I display the property of a folder, the value is correct (15%) (the value is also correct with

Re: strange behaviour of quota with one user

2004-06-18 Thread Ken Murchison
Nicolas Schmitz wrote: Hello, one of my user, who use 700Meg on the server, has a strange problem : when I increase his quota (over 4,2gig), Mozilla display the quota warn popup (saying 85% is used) whereas if I display the property of a folder, the value is correct (15%) (the value is also

Pre-forking strange behaviour

2003-01-19 Thread marc . bigler
Hello, I've just remarked a strange behaviour of the master process presumably. I am using the same cyrus.conf as the prefork.conf example configuration file. So now what I've remarked is that just after starting cyrus's master process it starts the following processes: hostname% ps -fu cyrus

Re: Pre-forking strange behaviour

2003-01-19 Thread Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So seeing this behaviour I wanted to ask on this mailing list if this is a normal behaviour ? I am not so sure but I would say no. At least everything Well, it is a nominal behaviour :) -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One