Am 13.04.2012 01:33, schrieb Michael Orlitzky:
> Nothing to do with Dovecot, but I figured this is the best place to ask.
>
> Do any of the newer versions of Outlook have proper identities support
> like Thunderbird, mutt, Roundcube, i.e. every other mail client on Earth?
>
> We have customers wh
On 13/04/2012 02:33, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
Nothing to do with Dovecot, but I figured this is the best place to ask.
Do any of the newer versions of Outlook have proper identities support
like Thunderbird, mutt, Roundcube, i.e. every other mail client on Earth?
We have customers who set up ten
On 4/12/12, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 4/11/2012 9:23 PM, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
> I suppose the controller could throw an error if
>> the two drives returned data that didn't agree with each other but it
>> wouldn't know which is the accurate copy but that wouldn't protect the
>> integrity of t
On 4/12/2012 5:58 AM, Ed W wrote:
> The claim by ZFS/BTRFS authors and others is that data silently "bit
> rots" on it's own. The claim is therefore that you can have a raid1 pair
> where neither drive reports a hardware failure, but each gives you
> different data?
You need to read those article
Nothing to do with Dovecot, but I figured this is the best place to ask.
Do any of the newer versions of Outlook have proper identities support
like Thunderbird, mutt, Roundcube, i.e. every other mail client on Earth?
We have customers who set up ten different mailboxes for one person
because oth
Hello all,
I hope someone can help me, I have been testing out Dovecot to switch from
popa3d which I use at the moment. When I get several users connecting and
disconnection multiple times, the Dovecot process with command Auth uses
50-90% of the CPU for the period which they are connecting. I a
Hello all,
I hope someone can help me, I have been testing out Dovecot to switch from
popa3d which I use at the moment. When I get several users connecting and
disconnection multiple times, the Dovecot process with command Auth uses
50-90% of the CPU for the period which they are connecting. I
Il giorno 12/apr/2012, alle ore 17.35, Andrea Mistrali ha scritto:
> Hi to all!
> I’m trying to setup master users, but I have some problems. Namely I can
> authenticate, but after it I cannot access INBOX or other mailboxes of the
> user.
>
snip
> Can someone tell me what is wrong in my setup
:
user=an...@am.cx
# doveadm user an...@am.cx
userdb: an...@am.cx
uid : 10010
gid : 8
home : /var/mail/am.cx/andre
mail : maildir:~/maildir:INBOX=~/maildir/INBOX:LAYOUT=fs:INDEX=~/indexes/
acl_groups:
quota_rule: *:storage=10G
and in log files I see:
2
Quoting Thierry de Montaudry :
I've seen a similar problem a while ago (1 year maybe more), but
used the mailbox Rebuild option on the client, which fixed it
without having to delete and recreate the account. Your problem
might just be a local index corruption, which can happen when
loos
Hi there,
> I have to say - I haven't actually seen this happen... Do any of your
> big mailstore contacts observe this, eg rackspace, etc?
Just to throw in to the discussion that with (silent) data corruption
not only "the disk" is involved but many other parts of your systems.
So perhaps you w
Daminto Lie wrote:
Hi,
I am afraid I have a question to ask of you all. I have just completed setting
up a mail server running on Ubuntu Server 10.04. It has postfix, dovecot
1.2.19, LDAP and squirrelmail as the webmail. I have also created virtual users
accounts on the system through LDAP. I
Hi,
I am afraid I have a question to ask of you all. I have just completed setting
up a mail server running on Ubuntu Server 10.04. It has postfix, dovecot
1.2.19, LDAP and squirrelmail as the webmail. I have also created virtual users
accounts on the system through LDAP. I can send and receive
On 12/04/2012 12:09, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On 12.4.2012, at 13.58, Ed W wrote:
The claim by ZFS/BTRFS authors and others is that data silently "bit rots" on
it's own. The claim is therefore that you can have a raid1 pair where neither drive
reports a hardware failure, but each gives you differ
On 12.4.2012, at 14.47, Artur Zaprzała wrote:
> I have enabled zlib plugin for imap, pop3, lda and lmtp. But how to enable it
> for doveadm?
Just set it globally:
mail_plugins = zlib
I still have some old messages from previous mail server. This messages have no
W= attribute either in file name or dovecot-uidlist and are compressed with
gzip. Running "doveadm mailbox status -A vsize \*" will result in the following
messages:
doveadm(foo@domain): Error: Cached message size
On 12/04/2012 02:18, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 4/11/2012 11:50 AM, Ed W wrote:
Re XFS. Have you been watching BTRFS recently?
I will concede that despite the authors considering it production ready
I won't be using it for my servers just yet. However, it's benchmarking
on single disk benchmarks
On 12.4.2012, at 13.58, Ed W wrote:
> The claim by ZFS/BTRFS authors and others is that data silently "bit rots" on
> it's own. The claim is therefore that you can have a raid1 pair where neither
> drive reports a hardware failure, but each gives you different data?
That's one reason why I pla
On 12/04/2012 11:20, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 4/11/2012 9:23 PM, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
On 4/12/12, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 4/11/2012 11:50 AM, Ed W wrote:
One of the snags of md RAID1 vs RAID6 is the lack of checksumming in the
event of bad blocks. (I'm not sure what actually happens when
On 4/11/2012 9:23 PM, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
> On 4/12/12, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> On 4/11/2012 11:50 AM, Ed W wrote:
>>> One of the snags of md RAID1 vs RAID6 is the lack of checksumming in the
>>> event of bad blocks. (I'm not sure what actually happens when md
>>> scrubbing finds a bad sect
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 11:35:48AM +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On 12.4.2012, at 11.33, Thomas Leuxner wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 11:17:50AM +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> >> But do you keep your intermediate cert in ssl_ca file or ssl_cert file?
> >
> > Separate. Root and intermediate
On 12.4.2012, at 11.33, Thomas Leuxner wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 11:17:50AM +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>> But do you keep your intermediate cert in ssl_ca file or ssl_cert file?
>
> Separate. Root and intermediate are in ssl_ca:
The documentation tells to put the intermediary to ssl_cert
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 11:17:50AM +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> But do you keep your intermediate cert in ssl_ca file or ssl_cert file?
Separate. Root and intermediate are in ssl_ca:
$ cat /etc/ssl/certs/SSL123_CA_Bundle.pem
-BEGIN CERTIFICATE-
MIIEjzCCA3egAwIBAgIQdhASihe2grs6H50amjXAkjA
On 12.4.2012, at 11.16, Thomas Leuxner wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:43:22AM +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>> What kind of a certificate do you have? You have an intermediary cert that
>> exists only in ssl_ca file? I couldn't reproduce this with a test. But
>> anyway, reverted for now: http
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:43:22AM +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> What kind of a certificate do you have? You have an intermediary cert that
> exists only in ssl_ca file? I couldn't reproduce this with a test. But
> anyway, reverted for now: http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.1/rev/f80f18d0ffa3
>
T
On 12.4.2012, at 10.43, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On 12.4.2012, at 10.11, Thomas Leuxner wrote:
>
>> Some change between bf5ae73e9475 and 584bd77c38fd seems to have broken
>> something in the SSL Handshake. A previously valid server certificate is
>> deemed invalid by various mail clients.
>>
>> ht
On 12.4.2012, at 10.11, Thomas Leuxner wrote:
> Some change between bf5ae73e9475 and 584bd77c38fd seems to have broken
> something in the SSL Handshake. A previously valid server certificate is
> deemed invalid by various mail clients.
>
> http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.1/rev/bf5ae73e9475 works
Some change between bf5ae73e9475 and 584bd77c38fd seems to have broken
something in the SSL Handshake. A previously valid server certificate is
deemed invalid by various mail clients.
http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.1/rev/bf5ae73e9475 works fine while
http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.1/rev/584bd77c
28 matches
Mail list logo
