Re: HELP with email attachments ONLY clean up
Better place for CPanel support and/or feature requests: https://support.cpanel.net/ This is a Dovecot mailing list. El 25/4/24 a les 0:44, INFO @ TRIMLINE via dovecot ha escrit: Hello Dovecot Dev team, In my cpanel, we use your email management. This is what my hosting provider has allowed. Our problem: Since the introduction of "hi def cameras on mobile phones", we are getting emails with "huge attachments". The email which comes with the attachments is also important. However, once we download the email (imap), using any of the email clients (outlook, bluemail etc.) the mailbox still has these huge attachments. Because of this, our mailbox storage gets filled up quickly. In our email client software, we can delete (attachments only), and leave the email in our mailbox. So this work around helps us keep our mailbox size manageable. Unfortunately, not everyone does this "email attachment cleanup" regularly and end up being locked out of email storage space and probably lost a few hours of productive time. Our dev Request: Would it be possible to create a setting for end users in our Cpanel, in which we can delete the attachments without deleting the actual message? So query should have: (drop down selection, like you have it now) * Filter 01: Select Messages older than nnn days (where nnn would be 100 to 999 days) (so for the first 99 days, every imap client would have the opportunity to download the email and the attachments) * From Filter 01 = Filter 02: Select messages which are >xxx Mb (where xxx could be 001 to 999 Mb) * From Filter 02 = Filter 03: Select only messages which contain attachments (Yes) * From Filter 03: Permanently Delete the attachments ONLY, So not deleting the actual email msg (OK). So on day 100 (or after the clean up is done), the imap email client will now only get the email but not the attachments (in the event they need to refresh their email setup). If such a query can be created and installed on our Cpanel, we can run this "clean up attachments" query regularly and as such reduce our mailbox size. Q: Would it be possible to create such a clean up tool (pre-defined) so that the cpanel web service admin user only has to enter (nnn and xxx and Yes) to finally click on "OK" to delete the attachments? If this would be possible, what will it cost us to have it installed on our Cpanel? There is so much information/documentation already on your website (doc.dovecot.org) and I spent about 60 min looking for such a "clean up tool" documentation, but started getting dizzy reading all that script language etc. Not my cup of tea. Please help. Thank you for considering and reading this request. Kind regards M. Akil Walji ___ dovecot mailing list -- dovecot@dovecot.org To unsubscribe send an email to dovecot-le...@dovecot.org -- Narcis Garcia __ I'm using this dedicated address because personal addresses aren't masked enough at this mail public archive. Public archive administrator should remove and omit any @, dot and mailto combinations against automated addresses collectors. ___ dovecot mailing list -- dovecot@dovecot.org To unsubscribe send an email to dovecot-le...@dovecot.org
Re: Debian Bookworm packages, please !
+1
El 26/6/24 a les 14:34, Laura Smith via dovecot ha escrit:
You are conflating OS with packages. I don't think you'll find any OS making
promises about packages.
And even if it were the case, you are expecting a community patch based on what
exactly ? OpenSSL are not releasing the code to non-premium customers, and as
Aki has repeatedly told us here, OpenSSL 3.0 is vastly different to 1.1.1, so
its not like you can expect to magically invent patch based on the OpenSSL 3.0
code (even if it may be true for a limited number of circumstances, it won't be
true for all 1.1.1 patches).
The sensible thing to do is to run a current OS with a current version of
OpenSSL, anything else is wishful thinking based on excess expectations,
frankly.
On Wednesday, 26 June 2024 at 13:11, Lucas Rolff wrote:
They likely do not, but vulnerabilities reported are also patched for the
duration of the OS lifecycle. With or without premium access. Since that's what
the OS has committed to, unless they pull a redhat and deprecate an OS before
initial EOL date.
Sent from Outlook for iOS
From: Laura Smith
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2024 2:06:44 PM
To: Lucas Rolff
Cc: Aki Tuomi ; Laura Smith via dovecot
; Michael
Subject: Re: Debian Bookworm packages, please !
So you're saying other operating systems magically get access to OpenSSL
premium ? I somehow doubt it.
On Wednesday, 26 June 2024 at 13:01, Lucas Rolff wrote:
That Debian doesn't patch their LTS releases properly like other operating
systems, should probably be brought up with the Debian release and security
teams.
Sent from Outlook for iOS
From: Laura Smith via dovecot
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2024 1:31:48 PM
To: Aki Tuomi
Cc: Laura Smith via dovecot ; Michael
Subject: Re: Debian Bookworm packages, please !
The fundamental problem here is that this turns into a security problem, which
in 2024 is not a nice thing to have.
Yes, theoretically I could run the previous Debian release, 11 Bullseye which
is now EOL but in LTS until 2026.
However, the OpenSSL delivered with Bullseye is 1.1.1. Any LTS patches delivered by
Debian are based on public patches, so basically there will be no OpenSSL patches because
OpenSSL moved 1.1.1 to premium support only, *INCLUDING* security patches, as described
on their website ("It will no longer be receiving publicly available security fixes
after that date") https://www.openssl.org/blog/blog/2023/03/28/1.1.1-EOL/index.html.
Meanwhile, we are being spoonfed FUD/semi-FUD about the Debian provided 2.3 package.
"be careful it's broken" is not a warning a good sysadmin takes lightly.
Meanwhile, if we're lucky, we might get 2.4 this side of Christmas 2024.
Its all a bit of a mess. Its all a bit worrying.
Meanwhile alternatives are few and far between, and I suspect Dovecot knows
that ! The Dovecot community are left between the proverbial rock and a hard
place.
Cyrus is now dependent on the commercial goodwill of FastMail, which brings
thoughts of comparisons with Dovecot and OpenXChange.
Stalwart, whilst extraordinarily promising, needs another year or so of
development to reach v1 and mature the code.
___
dovecot mailing list -- dovecot@dovecot.org
To unsubscribe send an email to dovecot-le...@dovecot.org
___
dovecot mailing list -- dovecot@dovecot.org
To unsubscribe send an email to dovecot-le...@dovecot.org
--
Narcis Garcia
__
I'm using this dedicated address because personal addresses aren't
masked enough at this mail public archive. Public archive administrator
should remove and omit any @, dot and mailto combinations against
automated addresses collectors.
___
dovecot mailing list -- dovecot@dovecot.org
To unsubscribe send an email to dovecot-le...@dovecot.org
Re: Debian Bookworm packages, please !
+1 here too.
FOSS is FOSS community, not "FOSS service".
El 26/6/24 a les 15:47, Scott Q. via dovecot ha escrit:
Hi Laura,
I understand your frustration but if you are relying on Dovecot for a
commercial solution, I believe your anger is misguided. The open
source project has no duty nor do they have to guarantee anything.
Open source means everyone can contribute, but in this case, only one
major contributor exists.
My advice for anyone facing similar frustrations is to contribute the
proper code to 2.3 to make it compatible with OpenSSL 3.0. Failing
that, you can hire competent programmers and have them contribute the
code to the public GitHub repository.
No, I don't work for OpenXChange but I do maintain a few open source
projects and am accustomed to people's expectations to get commercial
grade software...for free.
Cheers
On Wednesday, 26/06/2024 at 08:34 Laura Smith via dovecot wrote:
You are conflating OS with packages. I don't think you'll find any
OS making promises about packages.
And even if it were the case, you are expecting a community patch
based on what exactly ? OpenSSL are not releasing the code to
non-premium customers, and as Aki has repeatedly told us here, OpenSSL
3.0 is vastly different to 1.1.1, so its not like you can expect to
magically invent patch based on the OpenSSL 3.0 code (even if it may
be true for a limited number of circumstances, it won't be true for
all 1.1.1 patches).
The sensible thing to do is to run a current OS with a current version
of OpenSSL, anything else is wishful thinking based on excess
expectations, frankly.
On Wednesday, 26 June 2024 at 13:11, Lucas Rolff wrote:
They likely do not, but vulnerabilities reported are also patched
for the duration of the OS lifecycle. With or without premium access.
Since that's what the OS has committed to, unless they pull a redhat
and deprecate an OS before initial EOL date.
Sent from Outlook for iOS
From: Laura Smith
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2024 2:06:44 PM
To: Lucas Rolff
Cc: Aki Tuomi ; Laura Smith via dovecot ; Michael
Subject: Re: Debian Bookworm packages, please !
So you're saying other operating systems magically get access to
OpenSSL premium ? I somehow doubt it.
On Wednesday, 26 June 2024 at 13:01, Lucas Rolff wrote:
That Debian doesn't patch their LTS releases properly like other
operating systems, should probably be brought up with the Debian
release and security teams.
Sent from Outlook for iOS
From: Laura Smith via dovecot
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2024 1:31:48 PM
To: Aki Tuomi
Cc: Laura Smith via dovecot ; Michael
Subject: Re: Debian Bookworm packages, please !
The fundamental problem here is that this turns into a security
problem, which in 2024 is not a nice thing to have.
Yes, theoretically I could run the previous Debian release, 11
Bullseye which is now EOL but in LTS until 2026.
However, the OpenSSL delivered with Bullseye is 1.1.1. Any LTS
patches delivered by Debian are based on public patches, so basically
there will be no OpenSSL patches because OpenSSL moved 1.1.1 to
premium support only, *INCLUDING* security patches, as described on
their website ("It will no longer be receiving publicly available
security fixes after that date")
https://www.openssl.org/blog/blog/2023/03/28/1.1.1-EOL/index.html.
Meanwhile, we are being spoonfed FUD/semi-FUD about the Debian
provided 2.3 package. "be careful it's broken" is not a warning a good
sysadmin takes lightly.
Meanwhile, if we're lucky, we might get 2.4 this side of Christmas
2024.
Its all a bit of a mess. Its all a bit worrying.
Meanwhile alternatives are few and far between, and I suspect
Dovecot knows that ! The Dovecot community are left between the
proverbial rock and a hard place.
Cyrus is now dependent on the commercial goodwill of FastMail,
which brings thoughts of comparisons with Dovecot and OpenXChange.
Stalwart, whilst extraordinarily promising, needs another year or
so of development to reach v1 and mature the code.
___
dovecot mailing list -- dovecot@dovecot.org
To unsubscribe send an email to dovecot-le...@dovecot.org
___
dovecot mailing list -- dovecot@dovecot.org
To unsubscribe send an email to dovecot-le...@dovecot.org
___
dovecot mailing list -- dovecot@dovecot.org
To unsubscribe send an email to dovecot-le...@dovecot.org
--
Narcis Garcia
__
I'm using this dedicated address because personal addresses aren't
masked enough at this mail public archive. Public archive administrator
should remove and omit any @, dot and mailto combinations against
automated addresses collectors.
___
dovecot mailing list -- dovecot@dovecot.org
To unsubscribe send an email to dovecot-le...@dovecot.org
Re: Debian community repository (bookworm)
Debian main reporitory includes dovecot-xxx_2.3.19 for Bookworm, and bookworm-backports repository includes dovecot-xxx_2.3.21 El 4/7/24 a les 12:30, Oliver Krone via dovecot ha escrit: Hi there, I 'can not find the debian community repository for dovecot-xxx-2.3.21. In fact https://repo.dovecot.org/ce-2.3-latest/debian/ does not provide bookworm. Any ideas? Thank you very much. Best regards Oliver ___ dovecot mailing list -- dovecot@dovecot.org To unsubscribe send an email to dovecot-le...@dovecot.org -- Narcis Garcia __ I'm using this dedicated address because personal addresses aren't masked enough at this mail public archive. Public archive administrator should remove and omit any @, dot and mailto combinations against automated addresses collectors. ___ dovecot mailing list -- dovecot@dovecot.org To unsubscribe send an email to dovecot-le...@dovecot.org
Re: How to deactivate "!include conf.d/auth-system.conf.ext" without touching "/etc/dovecot/conf.d/10-auth.conf"?
I see in my Debian (Stable) setup this inclusion line in /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf : !include conf.d/*.conf AFAIK this already should not include files with other extensions such as *.ext Otherwise you could rename auth-system.conf.ext to not have the ".conf" string. El 13/10/24 a les 14:50, postfix_dovecot--- via dovecot ha escrit: Hello, I want to deactivate the auth-system.conf.ext because it slows down the system and makes no sense because I utilize passwdfile.conf.ext. I have put all my configurations into the local.conf file, and all the original configuration files remain untouched. I want to stay on this path because that way I know where I made changes, and updates won't cause me any hassle. But how can I deactivate an option that was activated in the original configuration files?" Jens ___ dovecot mailing list -- dovecot@dovecot.org To unsubscribe send an email to dovecot-le...@dovecot.org -- Narcis Garcia __ I'm using this dedicated address because personal addresses aren't masked enough at this mail public archive. Public archive administrator should remove and omit any @, dot and mailto combinations against automated addresses collectors. ___ dovecot mailing list -- dovecot@dovecot.org To unsubscribe send an email to dovecot-le...@dovecot.org
Re: How to deactivate "!include conf.d/auth-system.conf.ext" without touching "/etc/dovecot/conf.d/10-auth.conf"?
In Debian and derivatives yo can check if some installed package provides a file, and the it can be upgradeable by package. Example (yes): $ dpkg -S /etc/sysctl.conf Example (no): $ dpkg -S /etc/dovecot/conf.d/10-auth.conf El 14/10/24 a les 7:40, postfix_dovecot--- via dovecot ha escrit: so you edit something ? Nope - not in the original files! I created a "local.conf" where I put in every configuration. And there I want to overrule the "auth-system.conf.ext", activated by default in the " conf.d/10-auth.conf". edit conf.d/10-auth.conf change line with auth-system.conf.ext so auth-system.conf.ext is commented line That would be the easiest way I guess - but exact what I don't want to do. I want to keep the original files untouched if possible. note to debian users, /etc/dovecot/ should not be overwrited by dovecot updates [...] It's a Debian system and I've seen many times over the years that configuration files were restored during upgrades. That's why I want to have the complete configuration in local.conf. ___ dovecot mailing list -- dovecot@dovecot.org To unsubscribe send an email to dovecot-le...@dovecot.org -- Narcis Garcia __ I'm using this dedicated address because personal addresses aren't masked enough at this mail public archive. Public archive administrator should remove and omit any @, dot and mailto combinations against automated addresses collectors. ___ dovecot mailing list -- dovecot@dovecot.org To unsubscribe send an email to dovecot-le...@dovecot.org
