Re: [Dovecot] dovecot Digest, Vol 52, Issue 52

[Jerry Yeager]

From the digest:

On Aug 14, 2007, at 1:04 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

other messages cut out…

Message: 9
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 19:03:58 +0200
From: martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Dovecot] use of deliver from procmail advisable?
To: dovecot@dovecot.org
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

also sprach Kyle Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.08.14.1833 +0200]:

I understand that dovecot's deliver does a little more than
deliver:

It also understands the 'seive' filter language (an alternative to
procmail).

I don't consider it an alternative to procmail because you cannot
pass mail to external programmes, like spamassassin or vacation.
Sure, sieve has its own vacation module, but I find that to be
rather limited. See this thread:

  http://dovecot.org/list/dovecot/2007-August/024686.html

What do you think will be less resource-heavy: calling deliver
for every mail received *in addition to* procmail, or letting the
IMAP server update the metadata on access?

Unless you're cutting it close to the limit on what your server
can handle, that's probably the wrong question to ask. A better
question is: which gives my users better performance?

Good point. The users, however, as far as I know, all use tools like
offlineimap to synchronise in the background, so it hardly matters.

your users aren't paying attention. Dovecot will *seem* snappier
if you do the indexing work on delivery rather than on access,
even though it may spend more CPU cycles overall to do so.

Does anyone have hard facts on how much the server process loses if
it encounters a folder with an index inconsistency?

--
martin;              (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
  \____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:"; [EMAIL PROTECTED]

mulutlitithtrhreeaadededd s siigngnatatuurere

spamtraps: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)

Url : http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20070814/ a1ee49ad/attachment.bin

------------------------------

End of dovecot Digest, Vol 52, Issue 52
***************************************

smtp      inet  n       -       n       -       -       smtpd
        -o content_filter=spamassassin

virtual   unix  -       n       n       -       -       virtual

tlsmgr    unix  -       -       n       1000?   1       tlsmgr

587       inet  n       -       -       -       -       smtpd
       -o content_filter=spamassassin

dovecot   unix  -       n       n       -       -       pipe


spamassassin unix -     n       n       -       -       pipe
        user=nobody argv=/usr/local/bin/spamc -f -e
        /usr/sbin/sendmail -oi -f ${sender} ${recipient}





        From:     HIDDEN
        Subject:        dovecot Digest, Vol 52, Issue 52
        Date:   August 14, 2007 1:04:06 PM EDT
        To:       HIDDEN
        Reply-To:         HIDDEN
        Return-Path:    <HIDDEN>
        Delivered-To:   HIDDEN

        X-Spam-Level:   

        Message-Id:     <HIDDEN>
        Mime-Version:   1.0
        Content-Type:   text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
        Content-Transfer-Encoding:      7bit
        X-Beenthere:    HIDDEN
        X-Mailman-Version:      2.1.9
        Precedence:     list
        List-Id:        Dovecot Mailing List <HIDDEN>
        List-Unsubscribe:       <HIDDEN>, <mailto:HIDDEN?subject=unsubscribe>
        List-Archive:   <HIDDEN>
        List-Post:      <HIDDEN>
        List-Help:      <HIDDEN?subject=help>
        List-Subscribe:         <HIDDEN>, <HIDDEN?subject=subscribe>
        Sender:         HIDDEN
        Errors-To:      HIDDEN


Jerry Yeager

I am trying to understand if you mean that Sieve does not play well with other apps or if you mean it is Dovecot's LDA that does not play well, 'cuz the LDA works quite well with SpamAssassin via Postfix's and Dovecot's virtual user setup… Here is a portion of the Postfix Master.cf file that let it work (non- relevant portions chopped out) flags=DRhu user=virtual:virtual argv=/usr/local/libexec/dovecot/ deliver -f ${sender} -d ${recipient} The header from this actual message (so you can see it in action -- note the email address are obscured) Received: by mail.HIDDEN (Postfix, from userid -2) id 0F11A234567; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 13:04:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from HIDDEN (HIDDEN [A.B.C.D]) by mail.HIDDEN (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41ED223455C for <HIDDEN>; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 13:04:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from HIDDEN (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by HIDDEN (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA3101647268 for <HIDDEN>; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:04:45 +0300 (EEST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.1 (2007-05-02) on HIDDEN.local X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.2.1

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature