On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 15:20:14 +0900 Christian Balzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course now it looks like this is not LDAP related after all.
>
Well, lemme rephrase that. It looks like the LDAP connection pool is
not the culprit.
I just re-ran the test with local users (shadow as passdb and pas
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:15:32 +0300 Timo Sirainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 16:49 +0900, Christian Balzer wrote:
> > > You could try
> > > http://dovecot.org/patches/debug/mempool-accounting.diff and send
> > > USR1 signal to dovecot-auth after a while. It logs how much memo
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
XFS is lousy for many small files. We tried XFS for our 9000 Users
(Maildir) and swithced back to ext3.
Properly tuned XFS is supposedly very nice. Check out:
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1479435
for more info.
Moritz Mertinkat wrote:
Hi there,
anyone interested in Debian Dovecot 1.0.1 packages?
I have created a package for etch/stable...
Could do that for sarge/oldstable as well.
Greets,
Maurice.
I'd love some up-to-date packages for Dovecot on Etch. I need to get some
practice in on my personal
On 2.7.2007, at 1.33, Simon Gao wrote:
The upcoming dbox and cydir formats of course beat everything in
performance :)
Is dbox in Dovecot 1.1 tree now? Is it the redesigned dbox? How
close is dbox ready for general use?
I am interested in testing it out. Where can I find instruction on
> The upcoming dbox and cydir formats of course beat everything in
> performance :)
Is dbox in Dovecot 1.1 tree now? Is it the redesigned dbox? How close is dbox
ready for general use?
I am interested in testing it out. Where can I find instruction on how to
configure dovecot to use dbox?
Si
mouss wrote:
>> Can Dovecot handle mbox for some users and maildir for others? I'd
>> like to try a conversion for one user... I'll probably create a new
>> user, then have procmail copy (via ! action code) all mail for one
>> user to that new user.
>
> Why not use one of the available mbox 2 ma
albinootje wrote:
hi,
i'm migrating 1 mail-server from LDAP+postfix+courier to
mysql+postfixadmin+dovecot,
on a debian etch machine i have followed this howto :
http://wiki.dovecot.org/HowTo/DovecotLDAPostfixAdminMySQL
(changed uid and gid for usage in debian, the SVN-postfixadmin
didn't work
mouss wrote:
mbox is broken by design. Look at the next line.
From what I can tell, mbox will convert the first word of this line to
">From".
This means the message is modified, which is ok for raw text, but is
not ok for structure text such as TeX or XML.
argh. the example doesn't even work
Don Russell wrote:
I'm using Dovecot 1.0.1-12 on Linux/Fedora 7
along with sendmail and procmail all running on the same box
mail is stored in mbox format
It's a small system with a half dozen or so e-mail "accounts". Each
with 40-60MB of messages in various folders.
I keep seeing messages ab
> This works if I use separate userdb and passdb queries. Does deliver
> not support the prefetch authentication method?
deliver does not support prefetch. See bottom of page:
http://wiki.dovecot.org/AuthDatabase/LDAP
I have three stanzas in my dovecot.conf
# other hosts
passdb ldap {
Hi
I've now got Dovecot 1.0.1 authenticating with PostgreSQL for the IMAP
service, but deliver doesn't seem to work the same.
I'm using the "prefetch" passdb, but deliver doesn't seem to recognise it.
Here's the log for a deliver attempt:
dovecot: Jul 01 16:51:35 Info: auth(default): master
Hi,
I've just started setting up Dovecot 1.0.1, and made an error in my
configuration, which I think has found a potential problem in Dovecot.
I'm using PostgreSQL authentication, and set the database host to
"localhost", which PostgreSQL doesn't listen on, so libpq is throwing
the standard
hi,
i'm migrating 1 mail-server from LDAP+postfix+courier to
mysql+postfixadmin+dovecot,
on a debian etch machine i have followed this howto :
http://wiki.dovecot.org/HowTo/DovecotLDAPostfixAdminMySQL
(changed uid and gid for usage in debian, the SVN-postfixadmin
didn't work for me, so i used th
On 2007-07-01 01:25, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-06-30 at 19:11 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
>>
>> I'm assuming this is per IP?
>
> No. I'm not sure if it should. Perhaps.
If you think about it, also take NATed networks into account. So it
would need a fairly high default and should have
* Charles Marcus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >I did the ext3 -> ext4 switch on two of our proxyservers a few months
> >ago. Then we forgot (!) about that test and the boxes just kept
> >running and running and running ...
>
> Interesting... have you noticed any differences in performance?
No. But at l
16 matches
Mail list logo
