Mario Antonio wrote:
Seth,
How do you deal with new important patches?
Do you patch the source and then rebuild the packages? Is it safe or
better just wait until SID release the new source?
I just wait for it to show up in sid. You could also apply patches
yourself and rebuild, either wa
Robert Schetterer schrieb:
> Timo Sirainen schrieb:
>> On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 20:04 +0200, Robert Schetterer wrote:
>>> as far i remember there was root ..
>>> yes of course i am having
>>> variables in namespaces i think i need them for my setup
>> expire-tool is currently incompatible with variabl
I need to copy some email storage from a Dovecot Server running 1.0.15
into another Dovecot Server running 1.2.2.
I know that I can use imapsync (perhaps this is the proper way)
But I was just wondering, if I can just run Rsync to do that transfer:
Will I run against some incompatibility forma
Seth,
How do you deal with new important patches?
Do you patch the source and then rebuild the packages? Is it safe or
better just wait until SID release the new source?
M.A.
Seth Mattinen wrote:
Mario Antonio wrote:
If you want to run Dovecot on Debian Lenny for a Production System (
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Steffen Kaiser wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Charles Sprickman wrote:
a bit stumped. I see there's a global sieverc that can be included, but I
need something along the lines of a per-user include that brings in the
spam filte
Timo,
oh, I didn't realize that it was not a standard Maildir++ file. It looks
like that is what is used in courier, which I am migrating from.
It simply contains the same value as the first line of the maildirsize
file does.
so, I guess I have to put the quota rule in the checkpasswd routine and
On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 11:56 -0700, Tim Traver wrote:
> To refresh the situation, I have a custom checkpasswd routine that
> retrieves the user information properly, which gives the Maildir root.
>
> In that Maildir directory, I use the maildirquota file to set the quota
> of the account.
What is
Timo,
ok, I have been trying to get this all set up, and am still having
problems. I'm sorry for bugging you about this...
To refresh the situation, I have a custom checkpasswd routine that
retrieves the user information properly, which gives the Maildir root.
In that Maildir directory, I use th
Quoting Timo Sirainen :
It depends on the locking scheme used by the filesystem. Working queue
directories (the ones where stuff comes and goes rapidly) is best suited
for a local FS anyway.
And when a server and its disk dies, the emails get lost :(
It would appear he is not talking about a
Chris Wakelin wrote:
> I'm still getting errors like
>
> Aug 04 18:01:22 IMAP 23842 127.0.0.1 : Error: Corrupted index
> cache file /.imap/INBOX/dovecot.index.cache: used_file_size too large
> Aug 04 18:01:22 IMAP 23842 127.0.0.1 : Error:
> fcntl(write-lock) locking failed for file
> /.imap/INBO
I would suppose that partly overlapping rules are most often a sign of a
configuration error.
So how about
1) most specific rule wins (or last rule wins, forcing more specific rules to
appear further down the file)
2) partly overlapping flag an error, except for
3) using != (or whatever) instead
On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 09:38 -0700, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> > Why don't queue directories and clusters mix well? Is this a performance
> > issue only, or something worse?
> >
>
> It depends on the locking scheme used by the filesystem. Working queue
> directories (the ones where stuff comes and go
Eric Jon Rostetter wrote:
> Quoting Seth Mattinen :
>
>> Queue directories and clusters don't
>> mix well, but a read-heavy maildir/dbox environment shouldn't suffer the
>> same problem.
>
> Why don't queue directories and clusters mix well? Is this a performance
> issue only, or something worse
On Aug 11, 2009, at 10:32 AM, Steffen Kaiser wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Timo Sirainen wrote:
4. Implement a multi-master filesystem backend for index files. The
idea
would be that all servers accessing the same mailbox must be
talking to
each
Quoting Seth Mattinen :
Queue directories and clusters don't
mix well, but a read-heavy maildir/dbox environment shouldn't suffer the
same problem.
Why don't queue directories and clusters mix well? Is this a performance
issue only, or something worse?
~Seth
--
Eric Rostetter
The Departme
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Timo Sirainen wrote:
I'm trying to figure out how exactly v2.0 should be parsing
IMO, "most specific" won't work as you pointed out several times, because
Dovecot cannot know, which precendence the zillion configuration optio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Timo Sirainen wrote:
4. Implement a multi-master filesystem backend for index files. The idea
would be that all servers accessing the same mailbox must be talking to
each others via network and every time something is changed, p
> You are right, and I left out half of my thoughts. I think there should be
> only a coarse grained concept of "more specific rules" - e.g. a protocol
> section is more specific than general config, and a local or remote IP
> restriction is more specific than a protocol section. I think that th
On Tuesday 11 August 2009 15:32:42 Matthijs Kooijman wrote:
> > > 1) User logs in to imap from 192.168.0.1. What is foo's value?
> > >
> > > protocol imap {
> > > remote_ip 192.168.0.0/16 {
> > > foo = foo
> > > }
> > > }
> > > remote_ip 192.168.0.0/24 {
> > > foo = bar
> > > }
> >
> > Th
On 08/11/2009 09:25 AM Michal Hlavinka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm forwarding feature request from one Fedora user:
>
>
> Shortly before suicide after migration to dbmail/postfix from Eudora
> Mailserver
> because we use % in Usernames as fallback and Apple-Mail does no Plaintext-
> Auth if CRAM-MD% w
> > 1) User logs in to imap from 192.168.0.1. What is foo's value?
> >
> > protocol imap {
> > remote_ip 192.168.0.0/16 {
> > foo = foo
> > }
> > }
> > remote_ip 192.168.0.0/24 {
> > foo = bar
> > }
>
> This one is easy. It should be foo in any case :-)
Why? /24 is more specific than /1
I was more thinking about thousands of servers, not clients. Each server should
contribute to the amount of storage you have. Buying huge storages is more
expensive. Also it would be nice if you could just keep plugging in more
servers to get more storage space, disk I/O and CPU and the system w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Charles Sprickman wrote:
a bit stumped. I see there's a global sieverc that can be included, but I
need something along the lines of a per-user include that brings in the spam
filtering rule that will "stick" until the user ex
On 8/11/2009, Charles Marcus (cmar...@media-brokers.com) wrote:
> Eh?? Not on my box. If I add a duplicate setting at the bottom, that
> setting overrides any previous setting.
In fact, this is one of the reasons postconf -n output is necessary when
asking for help on the list... more than once I
On 8/10/2009, Timo Sirainen (t...@iki.fi) wrote:
> (I'm also wondering about if it should be the first rule. Somehow to
> me it comes more naturally that last settings always override
> previous settings.
For config files, I agree.
> If we really want to make first settings come first, then the d
On 8/10/2009, Noel Butler (noel.but...@ausics.net) wrote:
>> Can you give me some other examples than firewalls or routing?
> Postfix,
Eh?? Not on my box. If I add a duplicate setting at the bottom, that
setting overrides any previous setting.
--
Best regards,
Charles
On 8/10/2009, Noel Butler (noel.but...@ausics.net) wrote:
> I think first rule match is best approach, as someone else pointed out,
> its how many things that most people here would work with daily work, be
> it a server daemon configuration, iptables, or Cisco routers. The only
> exceptions that I
Max Dittrich wrote:
> I'm not very familiar with C programming but while tracing
qed
> cmd_subscribe_full() I stumbled upon another thing. In
> mail_namespace_find_mask() (lib-storage/mail-namespace.c at line 413)
> mailbox is reassigned with a local string (not t_strduped). I think this
> might
This is 1.2.3, but there are also two older dovecots (with different machine
architecture) sharing the mail store:
dovecot: IMAP(xxx): Panic: file mail-index-transaction-view.c: line 106
(tview_apply_flag_updates): assertion failed: (map->hdr.record_size <=
tview->record_size)
Hi,
I'm running dovecot 1.2.3 with "imap_client_workarounds =
tb-extra-mailbox-sep" and noticed that after deleting a folder (moving
to Trash and emptying it on exit) that folder in Trash still keeps
subscribed.
I think the reason for that behavior is that the call for
mailbox_list_set_subscribed(
>From the log:
Aug 11 09:07:23 postamt dovecot: IMAP(zensy): Panic: file
mail-index-transaction-view.c: line 106 (tview_apply_flag_updates): assertion
failed: (map->hdr.record_size <= tview->record_size)
Aug 11 09:07:23 postamt dovecot: IMAP(zensy): Raw backtrace: imap [0x80f0411]
-> imap [0x80
Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On Aug 11, 2009, at 2:16 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>
>>> Show me a clustered filesystem that can guarantee that each file is
>>> stored in at least 3 different data centers and can scale linearly by
>>> simply adding more servers (let's say at least up to thousands).
>>
>> Ea
Robert Schetterer wrote:
> Timo Sirainen schrieb:
>> On Aug 11, 2009, at 12:41 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>>
Nothing forces you to switch from maildir, if you're happy with it :)
But if you want to support millions of users, it's simpler to distribute
the storage and disk I/O evenly ac
Hi,
I'm forwarding feature request from one Fedora user:
Shortly before suicide after migration to dbmail/postfix from Eudora Mailserver
because we use % in Usernames as fallback and Apple-Mail does no Plaintext-
Auth if CRAM-MD% was used before i installed dovecot as proxy
BUT it allows no % i
On Monday 10 August 2009 19:57:53 Timo Sirainen wrote:
> I'm trying to figure out how exactly v2.0 should be parsing
> configuration files. The most annoying part is if it should always just
> "use whatever comes first in config" or try some kind of a "use most
> specific rule".
I generally prefe
Timo Sirainen schrieb:
> On Aug 11, 2009, at 12:41 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>
>>> Nothing forces you to switch from maildir, if you're happy with it :)
>>> But if you want to support millions of users, it's simpler to distribute
>>> the storage and disk I/O evenly across hundreds of servers using
36 matches
Mail list logo
