On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 01:02:14 +0100
fakessh @ wrote:
>
> I managed to run in the root folder lda and sievec . I add the group
> mail to root more +w flag and everything should work properly
>
My global scripts located in /etc/dovecot/sieve. IMHO it's not a good idea to
allow write access to thi
On 1/16/11 2:10 PM -0600 Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Using XFS with delayed logging mount option (requires kernel 2.6.36 or
later).
...
Using the delayed logging feature, filesystem metadata write operations
are pushed almost entirely into RAM. Not only does this _dramatically_
decrease physical meta
On Sat, 2011-01-15 at 10:41 +, Ed W wrote:
>
> > One of the systems to fail was a firewall running off SSD.
>
> SSD or CF?
That doesn't make a lot of difference. They're all broadly similar.
There are better devices and worse devices, but they're mostly crap.
And as I said earlier, even if
I managed to run in the root folder lda and sievec . I add the group
mail to root more +w flag and everything should work properly
Le lundi 17 janvier 2011 à 10:02 +0200, Nikita Koshikov a écrit :
> Hello list,
>
> How can I compile sieve script under new 0.2.2 version from comandline?
>
> Un
On 17.1.2011, at 23.58, Javier de Miguel Rodríguez wrote:
>So in mdbox we should not use a ramdisk for indexes. But what about sdbox?
> sdbox indexes work as maildir indexes? Are sdbox indexes bigger than maildir
> indexes?
With both sdbox and mdbox the message flags are only stored in inde
> Jan 17 12:06:20 server dovecot: imap(@YYY): Panic: file
> imap-client.c: line 570 (client_continue_pending_input): assertion failed:
> (!client->handling_input)
I just saw this with 2.0.8 too. Backtrace is:
0 __kill + 10
1abort + 177
20x10d928000 + 143594
30x10d928000 +
On 2011-01-17 4:58 PM, Javier de Miguel Rodríguez wrote:
> We are now running dovecot 2.0.9 with indexes in a ram disk and maildir
> storage in a test system. We have the following questions:
>
> - If there is a power outage / kernel crash, we will lose the
> content of ramdisk. We have tested
Hello
We are now running dovecot 2.0.9 with indexes in a ram disk and
maildir storage in a test system. We have the following questions:
- If there is a power outage / kernel crash, we will lose the
content of ramdisk. We have tested that indexes are regenerated when a
user logs in v
On 2011-01-17 3:14 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> There was some interest in Trojita (an IMAP client) on this list at one
> point. It looks like it's been seeing steady development again:
>
> http://jkt.flaska.net/blog/Trojita_v0_2_9__a_Qt_IMAP_e_mail_client.html
Interesting, thanks!
--
Best r
There was some interest in Trojita (an IMAP client) on this list at one
point. It looks like it's been seeing steady development again:
http://jkt.flaska.net/blog/Trojita_v0_2_9__a_Qt_IMAP_e_mail_client.html
On 01/17/11 02:43 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 13:03 -0500, Paul Griffith wrote:
We are in the process of settings up a test server to help us test
moving from UW-IMAP to Dovecot. I didn't see any reference to the
UW-IMAP .imaprc file, does Dovecot just ignore this file.
On 2011-01-17 2:47 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 09:07 -0500, Charles Marcus wrote:
>> On 2011-01-15 9:30 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
>>> Then, enforce a smallish per user quota (how much would depend on your
>>> particular environment, but I'm thinking something like 250 or maybe
On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 09:07 -0500, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 2011-01-15 9:30 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
> > Then, enforce a smallish per user quota (how much would depend on your
> > particular environment, but I'm thinking something like 250 or maybe
> > 500MB, since our users do get a lot of larg
On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 13:03 -0500, Paul Griffith wrote:
>We are in the process of settings up a test server to help us test
> moving from UW-IMAP to Dovecot. I didn't see any reference to the
> UW-IMAP .imaprc file, does Dovecot just ignore this file.
Dovecot doesn't read that file. (Also A
On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 20:19 +0100, Steve wrote:
>
> I would not use MLC in a server environment. SLC has much better
> program/erase cycles per cell.
I wouldn't be overly worried about the underlying medium.
I'm more worried about the translation layer they use on top of it, to
make it pretend t
On 17/01/2011 02:20, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Ed W put forth on 1/16/2011 4:11 PM:
Using XFS with delayed logging mount option (requires kernel 2.6.36 or later).
XFS has natively used delayed allocation for quite some time, coalescing
multiple pending writes before pushing them into the buffer cach
Hi,
We are in the process of settings up a test server to help us test
moving from UW-IMAP to Dovecot. I didn't see any reference to the
UW-IMAP .imaprc file, does Dovecot just ignore this file.
cat .imaprc
I accept the risk
set mail-subdirectory mail
Paul
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Jerrale G
wrote:
> On 1/17/2011 6:42 AM, Pascal Volk wrote:
>>
>> On 01/17/2011 12:35 PM Antonio Manogué wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> I'm running dovecot 1.0.rc7 in a RHEL.
>>>
>>> I need to know if this version supports IMAPV4 rev1 and IDLE for a new
>>> project.
>>
There are no incompatible index changes between v1.1 and
v1.2 that I can remember (and wiki upgrading page didn't
mention any either).
Great, thanks for the info! I was able to successfully point my fresh 1.2
install at one of the shared accounts, and under the 1.2 install the ACLs work
pe
On 1/17/2011 6:42 AM, Pascal Volk wrote:
On 01/17/2011 12:35 PM Antonio Manogué wrote:
Hi.
I'm running dovecot 1.0.rc7 in a RHEL.
I need to know if this version supports IMAPV4 rev1 and IDLE for a new
project.
Why using an old Dovecot version for a new project?
Two times yes to answer your q
Hello!
I'm converting mailboxes from maildirs to mdbox and dsync crashes on two
of them
/var/mail-nfs-1 - nfs mount
/var/mail-nfs-indexes - local fs
/usr/bin/dsync -f -u u...@site.ru mirror
mdbox:/var/mail-nfs-1/mail/site.ru/user/mail:INDEX=/var/mail-nfs-indexes/site.ru/user
dsync(u...@site.ru):
On 2011-01-15 9:30 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
> Then, enforce a smallish per user quota (how much would depend on your
> particular environment, but I'm thinking something like 250 or maybe
> 500MB, since our users do get a lot of large attachments in the course
> of doing business) on their INBOX -
On 2011-01-17 7:54 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 2011-01-17 6:42 AM, Antonio Manogué wrote:
>> I need to know if this version supports IMAPV4 rev1 and IDLE for a new
>> project.
>
> What you really need to 'know' is that 1.0.7 is extremely old,
And I just noticed this was not even 1.0.7, but 1.0
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011, Steve wrote:
Von: Giles Coochey
That can depend on what you clasify as SPAM. Many, 'newsletters' which
you've been 'subscribed to' by negative option web-forms are considered
SPAM by some, and those may contain PDF attachments of 500kb+
Welll I wrote about "usual" a
On 17/01/2011 14:18, Steve wrote:
On 17/01/2011 13:41, Steve wrote:
You get 500Kb+ sized spam messages? That is not usual. I have not done
any computation on my part but I remember seen last year (or so) a study
showing that spam messages are usually below 64Kb.
That can depend on what you cl
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 13:45:51 +0100
> Von: Giles Coochey
> An: dovecot@dovecot.org
> Betreff: Re: [Dovecot] SSD drives are really fast running Dovecot
> On 17/01/2011 13:41, Steve wrote:
> > You get 500Kb+ sized spam messages? That is not usual. I have n
On 2011-01-17 6:42 AM, Antonio Manogué wrote:
> I need to know if this version supports IMAPV4 rev1 and IDLE for a new
> project.
What you really need to 'know' is that 1.0.7 is extremely old, and you
need to update, *especially* if you are starting a new project.
--
Best regards,
Charles
On 2011-01-17 4:49 AM, Joseph Tam wrote:
> It forces users to process their Email (or at least their INBOX).
> and keeps packratting in check. Super-big INBOX quotas seem to encourage
> wasteful habits. I've helped some users clean out their mailboxes and
> was surpised at the amount of junk bein
On 17/01/2011 13:41, Steve wrote:
You get 500Kb+ sized spam messages? That is not usual. I have not done any
computation on my part but I remember seen last year (or so) a study showing
that spam messages are usually below 64Kb.
That can depend on what you clasify as SPAM. Many, 'newsletters'
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 11:13:19 +0100 (CET)
> Von: Maarten Bezemer
> An: Dovecot Mailing List
> Betreff: Re: [Dovecot] SSD drives are really fast running Dovecot
>
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2011, Steve wrote:
>
> > Spam does not bump the average mail size consid
On 01/16/2011 04:28 PM, Patrick Westenberg wrote:
Timo Sirainen schrieb:
Someone did? .. It anyway depends on IMAP client and possibly also
user. There are no easy ways to calculate it exactly. I think it's
usually around 10-20% of mailbox size, but it really depends more on
the number of messa
On 01/17/2011 11:53 AM, J4 wrote:
> On 01/16/2011 08:42 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>> On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 17:22 +0100, J4 wrote:
>>
>>> I have postfix delivering to dovecot lda (via spamassinassin). I
>>> have configured the quota plugin, but it does not seem to respect the
>>> details in the
Hi.
I'm running dovecot 1.0.rc7 in a RHEL.
I need to know if this version supports IMAPV4 rev1 and IDLE for a new
project.
Thanks.
[root@pony mail]# uname -a
Linux pony.sabeco.es 2.6.18-1.2798.fc6 #1 SMP Mon Oct 16 14:37:32 EDT
2006 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
[root@pony mail]# dovecot --ve
On 01/17/2011 12:35 PM Antonio Manogué wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I'm running dovecot 1.0.rc7 in a RHEL.
>
> I need to know if this version supports IMAPV4 rev1 and IDLE for a new
> project.
Why using an old Dovecot version for a new project?
Two times yes to answer your questions. See also:
http://wik
Hi.
I'm running dovecot 1.0.rc7 in a RHEL.
I need to know if this version supports IMAPV4 rev1 and IDLE for a new
project.
Thanks.
--
Antonio Manogué Saiz
Técnico de Sistemas
Dpt. Sistemas y Comunicaciones
email: amano...@sabeco.es
Tlf: 976 188 184
Hi,
Yesterday I upgraded one of our system from 2.0.7 to 2.0.9, I've got about 5
panic since then. It is using the exact same config (see attached) and was
compiled the same way. Any clue on the reason? And how can I fix that?
Jan 17 12:06:20 server dovecot: imap(@YYY): Panic: file imap
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011, Steve wrote:
Spam does not bump the average mail size considerably. Average spam
mails is way smaller then average normal mails. The reason for this is
very simple: Spammers need to reach as many end users as possible. And
they need to get those mails out as fastest as po
On Sat, 15 Jan 2011, Charles Marcus wrote
Doing this will also help train users in proper email management -
treating their INBOX just like they would a physical INBOX tray on their
desk. They wouldn't just let paper pile up there, why do so in their
INBOX (because they 'can')? Ie, it should be
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 20:33:23 -0600
> Von: Stan Hoeppner
> An: dovecot@dovecot.org
> Betreff: Re: [Dovecot] SSD drives are really fast running Dovecot
> Cor Bosman put forth on 1/16/2011 5:34 PM:
> > Btw, our average mailsize last we checked was 30KB. Th
Hello list,
New version of dovecot segfaulting with expire plugin(sqlite db). Steps to
reproduce:
1)DB file has permitions:
-rw-r--r-- 1 mail mail 87040 Янв 17 10:04 /var/mail/expire.db
2)Dict dovecot config section:
service dict {
# If dict proxy is used, mail processes should have access to
Hello list,
How can I compile sieve script under new 0.2.2 version from comandline?
Under root:
#sievec default-before.sieve
sievec(root): Error: user root: Initialization failed: Namespace '':
mkdir(/root/data) failed: Permission denied (euid=8(mail) egid=12(mail) missing
+w perm: /root, eui
41 matches
Mail list logo
