also sprach Timo Sirainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.08.14.0028 +0200]:
> What exactly do you mean by FETCHing metadata? Something like ENVELOPE
> or BODYSTRUCTURE? And this is fetched for all messages instead of just
> new ones? That could easily explain why cache is so large.
The code is:
resp
Hi Timo and all. imap/cmd-create.c contains the following bit of code:
len = strlen(full_mailbox);
if (len == 0 || full_mailbox[len-1] != ns->sep)
directory = FALSE;
else {
/* name ends with hierarchy separator - client is just
Hi Timo,
Am I right that if the client fetch body.peek[header], no caching of
header fields will be done?
Regards,
- joe
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 23:18 +0800, Joe Wong wrote:
> > Hi Timo,
> >
> > Not necessarily. It goes like this:
> >
> > 1. mailbox
Trying to do a little (cosmetic) tweak to my configuration and just don't
seem to be able to come up with a set of options that works.
My POP/IMAP configuration is working just fine in terms of mail retrieval,
etc. What I'm seeing in the logs now is...
Aug 13 18:15:17 test2 dovecot: pop3-login
On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 22:59 +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> The way offlineimap reads may is by FETCHing metadata, then
> APPENDing new local mail, SEARCHing for the UIDs of each uploaded
> mail, and finally FETCHing new remote mail.
What exactly do you mean by FETCHing metadata? Something like E
On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 23:24 +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.08.13.2259 +0200]:
> > Memory use seems to be O(n) in the size of the folder. On the folder
> > with 70k messages, dovecot seems to allocate 280m of memory, which
>
> I just saw in the
On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 22:17 +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> The solution I found in RFC4315 ("UIDPLUS";
> http://www1.tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4315) and then I saw
> http://www.dovecot.org/list/dovecot/2004-July/003993.html, and now
> I am wondering: is anyone else interested in APPENDUID? What's the
I've tried dovecot-1.1-alpha3 (actually pulled from
hg://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot changeset 6289:4a57baddc8b8) and
dovecot-sieve from changeset 34:0367450c9382, and got problems:
---
$tail -2 /tmp/dovecot11.log
deliver(seriv): Aug 13 17:21:17 Panic: file index-mail-headers.c: line
590 (index_mail_get
also sprach martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.08.13.2259 +0200]:
> Memory use seems to be O(n) in the size of the folder. On the folder
> with 70k messages, dovecot seems to allocate 280m of memory, which
I just saw in the logs:
mmap() failed with index cache file
/home/madduck/.maild
Dear list,
I am experimenting with a new mail handling setup and it involves
a single IMAP folder with just under 70'000 messages. When
OfflineIMAP connects to the server, the imap process starts to eat
up a lot of memory:
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEMTIME+ COMMAND
1
# dovecot-related content below, this one for debian bug tracking
# system:
retitle 435959 Please support RFC4315 UIDPLUS extension in APPEND reply
severity 435959 wishlist
thanks
[please keep [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Cc.]
Hi there,
I am working on
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=43
On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 13:31 -0400, Sergey wrote:
> Timo Sirainen wrote:
> > http://dovecot.org/releases/1.1/alpha/dovecot-1.1.alpha3.tar.gz
> > http://dovecot.org/releases/1.1/alpha/dovecot-1.1.alpha3.tar.gz.sig
> >
> > All kinds of fixes and API changes. Previous alphas had some problems
> > with
Timo Sirainen wrote:
> http://dovecot.org/releases/1.1/alpha/dovecot-1.1.alpha3.tar.gz
> http://dovecot.org/releases/1.1/alpha/dovecot-1.1.alpha3.tar.gz.sig
>
> All kinds of fixes and API changes. Previous alphas had some problems
> with index handling, now I didn't get any errors after almost 24h
Hello Timo,
On Aug 13, 2007, at 14:15, Michael Guntsche wrote:
Maybe this can be changed that it does not take the interval into
account of it uses inotify, dnotify or kqueue.
My workaround for now is to set the timeout to 1.
I thought about a simple way to implement this.
mailbox_notify_
I attach a patch that adds some informational logging for the vacation
outcome in a similar style as the 'notify', 'redirect' and 'reject' cases.
I considered adding logging for the not-willing-to-respond case since I
think that would greatly assist testing/debugging vacation responses, but
couldn
On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 17:23 +0200, Geert Hendrickx wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 06:06:38PM +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> > So Dovecot remembers what fields client is interested of and when header
> > is being parsed it caches everything that it knows the client wants.
>
> For how long does dov
On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 23:18 +0800, Joe Wong wrote:
> Hi Timo,
>
> Not necessarily. It goes like this:
>
> 1. mailbox is newly created
> 2. a new mail arrives
> 3. Client does FETCH 1 (BODY.PEEK[HEADER.FIELDS (From)])
> --> Dovecot caches From header
> 4. Client does FETCH 1 (BODY.PEEK[HEADER.FIE
On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 06:06:38PM +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> So Dovecot remembers what fields client is interested of and when header
> is being parsed it caches everything that it knows the client wants.
For how long does dovecot remember which headers? e.g. what happens if a
user switches t
Hi Timo,
Not necessarily. It goes like this:
1. mailbox is newly created
2. a new mail arrives
3. Client does FETCH 1 (BODY.PEEK[HEADER.FIELDS (From)])
--> Dovecot caches From header
4. Client does FETCH 1 (BODY.PEEK[HEADER.FIELDS (Subject)])
--> Dovecot caches Subject header
5. a new mail arriv
On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 22:22 +0800, Joe Wong wrote:
> Hi Timo,
>
> I see. So, if the client fetch the From field at the first time and then
> fetch the subject field at the second time, the index.cache file will be
> updated twice?
Not necessarily. It goes like this:
1. mailbox is newly created
Hi Timo,
I see. So, if the client fetch the From field at the first time and then
fetch the subject field at the second time, the index.cache file will be
updated twice?
- Joe
- Original Message -
From: "Timo Sirainen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Joe Wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sen
After upgrading my server I have found that Im not able to use plain auth
for clients conecting from outside server. localhost clients (pine,
webmail) works fine, but if I use Thunderbird I got an error saying that
server requires TLS or SSL. But if I enable TLS or SSL I got more errors.
I have tri
On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 15:14 +0200, Frank Elsner wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:10:53 +0300 Timo Sirainen wrote:
> > http://dovecot.org/releases/1.1/alpha/dovecot-1.1.alpha3.tar.gz
> > http://dovecot.org/releases/1.1/alpha/dovecot-1.1.alpha3.tar.gz.sig
>
> Replaced 1.0.3 by 1.1.alpha3 but got many
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:10:53 +0300 Timo Sirainen wrote:
> http://dovecot.org/releases/1.1/alpha/dovecot-1.1.alpha3.tar.gz
> http://dovecot.org/releases/1.1/alpha/dovecot-1.1.alpha3.tar.gz.sig
Replaced 1.0.3 by 1.1.alpha3 but got many error messages
Aug 13 14:59:09 seymour dovecot: Dovecot v1.1
Hi,
Charles Marcus wrote:
>
> This looks interesting - how does it differ from the DSPAM plug-in?
> Maybe a generic plug-in could be created that would allow it to be used
> with any anti-spa, solution (I prefer ASSP myself)...
This plugin has nothing spamassassin-specific. Although I don't know
Nicolas Boullis, on 8/11/2007 5:49 PM, said the following:
Hi,
Long ago (more than 2 month ago), I told about a "pipe" plugin I had
written to perform some spam/ham learning (see the attached message).
I'm now proud to say that I can make it available for use by anyone.
You can get it from
On Aug 13, 2007, at 13:49, Timo Sirainen wrote:
What IMAP client do you use? Currently Dovecot works like:
- IDLE starts
- if maildir changes, the new changes are reported immediately
- if client doesn't break from IDLE, continue..
- if maildir changes before maildir_idle_check_interval se
http://dovecot.org/releases/1.1/alpha/dovecot-1.1.alpha3.tar.gz
http://dovecot.org/releases/1.1/alpha/dovecot-1.1.alpha3.tar.gz.sig
All kinds of fixes and API changes. Previous alphas had some problems
with index handling, now I didn't get any errors after almost 24h of
stress testing.
As a new f
On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 19:24 +0800, Joe Wong wrote:
> Hi Timo,
>
> Is the dovecot index cache stored only standard header
> fields (from, to, cc, subject, content-type... )? What
> happen if there is non standard header, will it be cached?
Yes. Dovecot caches the headers that a client fetches. No
On Sun, 2007-08-12 at 17:20 +0200, Michael Guntsche wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I recently switched from courier imap to dovecot. With courier I had
> a working IDLE setup that informed me immediately when new mail
> arrived. With Dovecot it is different, sometimes i get an immediate
> result but most
Hi Timo,
Is the dovecot index cache stored only standard header
fields (from, to, cc, subject, content-type... )? What
happen if there is non standard header, will it be cached?
- Joe
May the force be with you..
On Sun, 2007-08-12 at 17:20 +0200, Michael Guntsche wrote:
> So my question is can I check that dovecot is actually using inotify?
You can strace it or put a few print statements into the code.
johannes
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Aug 12, 2007, at 1:00 PM, Michael Guntsche wrote:
Running Dovecot 1.0.3 on OS X 10.4.10 here. Which --with-notify
compile time option would you suggest? dnotify, inotify, kqueue,
or none.
You should use kqueue under macosx since dnotify and inotify are
linux only.
Thanks for that,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007, M1 wrote:
When a user enable vacation in sieve deliver die and the mail lost.
The script is fine and is working for me, but I'm using v1.0.1 currently.
I had some problems with core dumps some time ago, because Dovecot delive
34 matches
Mail list logo
