[Dovecot] mail delivery

[Amira Othman]

I am using ISPConfig 3 ,postfix,dovecot and mysql the problem is that I
receive mail on server but can't get it through outlook and when check using
webmin I found that it reads form location different than what is written in
dovecot

 

Regards


Amira Othman

Server Administrator

  www.cairosource.com

 



6 EL Nil EL Abyad, Mohandiseen 

Cairo, Egypt

Direct: +2 02 3303 7175
Mobile:   +2 012 220 4165

 

The information transmitted is intended solely for the individual or entity
to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or
taking action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email
in error please contact the sender and delete the material from any
computer.

 

 

<>

[Dovecot] ImapTest and QRESYNC testing

[Norman Maurer]

Hi there,

I'm currently working on adding QRESYNC support for
james.apache.org/imap (which is a JAVA - based imapserver). For
testing I'm currently using ImapTest but I'm currently not really sure
it really reflect the RFC.

Here are the "problems" I see:
* It expect to have the UID param in the FETCH Response if QRESYNC was
enabled (I was not able to spot the section were it is stated in the
rfc)
* EXPUNGE command seems to expect EXPUNGE Responses if QRESYNC was
enabled, but from the RFC I think VANISHED is valid also.

It even seems to fail when testing again dovecot..

So how much can I trust it when testing QRESYNC ?

Thanks,
Norman

Ps: I'm not good a C at all, so its hard for me to provide patches ;)

[Dovecot] Dovecot 2.0.12 LMTP does not write +detail written to Delivered-To: header

[Michael George]

Hi Timo and List,

The Dovecot 2.0.10 changelog includes:

* LMTP: For user+detail@domain deliveries, the +detail is again written
  to Delivered-To: header.

I have recipient_delimiter = + set, lmtp_save_to_detail_mailbox=yes is
working, however Dovecot 2.0.12 LMTP processes are not adding these
headers to messages on delivery.

Are there other settings that may potentially conflict with this feature?

Re: [Dovecot] POP3 vs. IMAP Load/Memory usage in Dovecot 1.0.15

[Miquel van Smoorenburg]

On 11-07-11 5:03 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:

Given that you're running Dovecot 1.0.15 I'm guessing you're using
CentOS or RHEL 5.x and thus have kernel 2.6.18-xxx.  2.6.18 is 5 years
old now and not inappropriate for a modern 2 socket, 6 core
HyperThreading box.  You need a much newer kernel, preferably in the
2.6.3x series.  2.6.18 could be reporting incorrect load numbers on
these machines.


RHEL kernel version numbers do not say much. The redhat 2.6.18 is 2.6.18 
+ a boatload of "enterprise load" patches and backports from 2.6.2x. 
OTOH, dovecot 1.0.15 is ancient indeed :)



The discrepancies lie in two areas:

1) Load Average


On Linux, load average strictly shows total system CPU usage in
intervals, nothing else.


That would be FreeBSD, AFAIK. On linux, I/O does add to the load 
average. A process in state 'D' (Disk wait, could be NFS wait too btw) 
adds '1' to the load. If you have a broken NFS server and 2000 processes 
waiting on I/O, the reported load will go over 2000.


You get a better impression of system load by running 'top' and paying 
attention to the number on the 'cpu' line: us == time spent in user 
process, sy = kernel, id = idle, wa = I/O wait, si = interrupts


Press '1' while in top to expand the view to all CPUs seperately. Quite 
enlightening.



Given that all mail apps are 100% IO bound, never CPU or memory bound,
I'd guess you'll never see a load average over 4.00 on any of these
machines with less than 1000 concurrent connections.


Well, see above. Also, if you have SSL enabled, the crypto will actually 
eat quite a bit of CPU if you have a lot of network traffic.


Mike.

Re: [Dovecot] POP3 vs. IMAP Load/Memory usage in Dovecot 1.0.15

[Noel Butler]

On Sat, 2011-07-16 at 00:40 +0200, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:

> On 11-07-11 5:03 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> > On Linux, load average strictly shows total system CPU usage in
> > intervals, nothing else.
> 



> That would be FreeBSD, AFAIK. On linux, I/O does add to the load 


You're right Miquel, I/O adds to load in Linux, has done for many years.



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part