Il 2020-11-02 09:43 Aki Tuomi ha scritto:
Those files are most likely leftovers due to failed operations, for
reasons like crashes.
Aki
Hi, so it is safe to remove them?
Anyway, any idea on why are they all hardlinks to the same file?
Thanks.
--
Danti Gionatan
Supporto Tecnico
Assyoma S.r.l.
Il 2020-11-01 13:23 John Stoffel ha scritto:
How is your "mail_location" defined in your configuration? And what
is your search term?
John
Hi, I just discovered having such strange .temp files on an old server
of mine.
In some folders I have hundred of such files, but they really are
hard
Il 2020-07-10 22:20 Gionatan Danti ha scritto:
Hi all,
I wonder if using a per-user sieve_before setting (ie: a relative path
to user home, as ~/filter.sieve) is expected to work corretly.
Full disclaimer: I am migrating an old CentOS 6.10 box with dovecot
2.0.9 and an old pigenhole version. I
Hi all,
I wonder if using a per-user sieve_before setting (ie: a relative path
to user home, as ~/filter.sieve) is expected to work corretly.
Full disclaimer: I am migrating an old CentOS 6.10 box with dovecot
2.0.9 and an old pigenhole version. I now want to redirect emails from
old account
Il 2020-05-11 18:51 Aki Tuomi ha scritto:
Except now you lost the cache. Which is not really necessary. Why not
use 'doveadm expunge -u victim mailbox box uid number' instead? The
uid number is same as the number in file name.
Sure - I used it and worked like a charm!
I was just curious to und
Il 2020-05-11 17:41 Aki Tuomi ha scritto:
The index will be rebuilt once you try to access the mail.
Hi Aki, I probably misunderstood yor previous reply. So, the index will
be fixed when either:
- running doveadm force-sync
- accessing the mailbox (ie: via IMAP).
This means that removing an
Il 2020-05-11 15:54 Aki Tuomi ha scritto:
If you manually change the mailbox contents like that, you need to run
doveadm force-resync to fix the situation.
Aki
Ok, so it means that dovecot will *not* automatically fix the index file
and I need to reconstruct the index file, right?
Just for
Dear list,
I recently had to delete some messages from an sdbox mailbox, for which
I used the canonical "doveadm expunge" command without issues.
However I got curious and, on a test mailbox, I deleted an unimportant
message directly from the filesystem (rm u.650). After removing the
file, th
Hi all,
I am migrating a number of account from an old domain to a new one. I
would like to store all imported email from the old domain under a
specific IMAP folder. For example, if having t...@domain.old, I would
like to import all old email to t...@domain.new/fromold.
While I succeeded usi
Il 03-01-2020 19:51 @lbutlr ha scritto:
On 03 Jan 2020, at 06:16, Gionatan Danti wrote:
What surprises me is that hard-linking identical messages saves so
much space, yet nobody seems to asking/using such feature.
So, either a) few cares about saving space or b) few are using the
pigeonhole
Il 03-01-2020 13:11 Stephan Bosch ha scritto:
I think this used to work in the past. Still need to look at this one.
Regards,
Stephan.
Hi Stephan, thank for your reply.
What surprises me is that hard-linking identical messages saves so much
space, yet nobody seems to asking/using such featu
Il 23-12-2019 12:04 Gionatan Danti ha scritto:
On 19/12/19 11:08, Gionatan Danti wrote:
Hi list,
many moons ago I asked about preserving hardlink between identical
messages when pigeonhole (for sieve filtering) was used.
The reply was that, while hardlink worked well for non-filtered
On 19/12/19 11:08, Gionatan Danti wrote:
Hi list,
many moons ago I asked about preserving hardlink between identical
messages when pigeonhole (for sieve filtering) was used.
The reply was that, while hardlink worked well for non-filtered
messages, using pigeonhole broke the hardlink (ie
Hi list,
many moons ago I asked about preserving hardlink between identical
messages when pigeonhole (for sieve filtering) was used.
The reply was that, while hardlink worked well for non-filtered
messages, using pigeonhole broke the hardlink (ie: some message-specific
data was appended to th
x27;s a rather difficult change and also pretty low priority right now.
I'd be happy to explain the details to whoever wants to develop this,
but I wouldn't be surprised if it was still unimplemented a few years
from now.
On 07 Jun 2016, at 15:59, Gionatan Danti wrote:
Hi list,
any
Hi list,
any news regarding hardlinks + sieve/pigeonhole setup?
Hardlinking seems a very important feature to me, and I would really
like to get it working.
Thanks.
On 30/11/2015 14:23, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On 30 Nov 2015, at 10:21, Gionatan Danti wrote:
So, let me do a straigth question
Il 30-11-2015 23:23 Timo Sirainen ha scritto:
On 30 Nov 2015, at 17:48, Gionatan Danti wrote:
Hi Timo,
glad to know it is in your TODO list ;)
It's been for many years.
Any rough ETA on that?
Right now it doesn't seem likely to be developed anytime soon.
Thank you anyway
Hi Timo,
glad to know it is in your TODO list ;)
Any rough ETA on that?
Thanks.
On 30/11/2015 14:23, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On 30 Nov 2015, at 10:21, Gionatan Danti wrote:
So, let me do a straigth question: is someone using dovecot/LMTP with
hardlinking? To me, this seems a _very_ important
feature (hardlink+sieve) simply
does not exists.
Thanks.
On 27/11/2015 09:44, Gionatan Danti wrote:
centos 7.x is latest, so if you need help upgrade make a bug report to
centos, not waste your time here since you choiced a precompiled
problem, reporting here 7s helpfull if you use dovecot
centos 7.x is latest, so if you need help upgrade make a bug report to
centos, not waste your time here since you choiced a precompiled
problem, reporting here 7s helpfull if you use dovecot compiled with
the latest version here, this migth be a unknown bug you then have
found, but not if you use
Il 26-11-2015 15:15 John R. Dennison ha scritto:
You are strongly encouraged to update that CentOS system. Current is
6.7 (released some 3 months ago) and dovecot-2.0.9-19.
Ouch! I copied outdated information from my old post.
My current system _is_ CentOS 6.7 with dovecot
dovecot-2.0.9-19.el
Il 14-07-2015 14:44 Gionatan Danti ha scritto:
On 14/07/15 12:26, Steffen Kaiser wrote:
You asked about "newer dovecot versions", v2.2 does so.
Fair enough :)
So, with v2.2+ the hardlink approach is irremediably gone, at least
with LMTP (and without relying to SiS)?
Dear list
On 14/07/15 12:26, Steffen Kaiser wrote:
You asked about "newer dovecot versions", v2.2 does so.
Fair enough :)
So, with v2.2+ the hardlink approach is irremediably gone, at least with
LMTP (and without relying to SiS)?
--
Danti Gionatan
Supporto Tecnico
Assyoma S.r.l. - www.assyoma.it
On 14/07/15 08:17, Steffen Kaiser wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015, Gionatan Danti wrote:
On the other hand, private (per-user) sieve file works without
interfering with hardlinks. In a similar manner, disabling sieve also
permits dovecot to create
/07/15 11:10, Javier Miguel RodrÃguez wrote:
Search about "single instance storage dovecot". This is what you need.
Regards
Javier
On 27/06/2015 18:18, Gionatan Danti wrote:
Hi all,
I have some questions about hardlinks, alternate storage and
compression. I already scanned the list f
Sorry list,
anyone with a good idea / suggestion?
Thanks.
Il 29-06-2015 11:20 Gionatan Danti ha scritto:
Hi all,
any ideas?
Especially point n.1 (no hardlink when sending the same email to
multiple addresses) confuse me a bit. Searching in old messages I even
stumbled on some users stating
_already_ using LMTP with no avail...
Regards.
On 27/06/15 18:18, Gionatan Danti wrote:
Hi all,
I have some questions about hardlinks, alternate storage and
compression. I already scanned the list for related information and I
have an idea of how things works, but I would like to have a definite
Hi all,
I have some questions about hardlinks, alternate storage and
compression. I already scanned the list for related information and I
have an idea of how things works, but I would like to have a definite
answer.
System spec:
- CentOS 6.6 x64
- dovecot-2.0.9-8.el6_6.4.x86_64 RPM package/v
= !SSLv2
}
Regards,
Felix Zandanel
Am 09.02.2015 um 11:33 schrieb Gionatan Danti :
Sorry for the bump...
Anyone know if it is possible to have multiple protocols instances
with different ssl_protocols settings?
Regards.
On 07/02/15 00:03, Gionatan Danti wrote:
Hi all,
anyone with some idea
Sorry for the bump...
Anyone know if it is possible to have multiple protocols instances with
different ssl_protocols settings?
Regards.
On 07/02/15 00:03, Gionatan Danti wrote:
Hi all,
anyone with some ideas?
Thanks.
Il 2015-02-02 23:08 Gionatan Danti ha scritto:
Hi all,
I have a
Hi all,
anyone with some ideas?
Thanks.
Il 2015-02-02 23:08 Gionatan Danti ha scritto:
Hi all,
I have a question regarding the "ssl_protocols" parameter.
I understand that editing the 10-ssl.conf file I can set the
ssl_protocols variable as required.
At the same time, I can edi
Hi all,
I have a question regarding the "ssl_protocols" parameter.
I understand that editing the 10-ssl.conf file I can set the
ssl_protocols variable as required.
At the same time, I can edit a single protocol file (eg: 20-pop3.conf)
to set the ssl_protocols for a specific protocol/listener.
You could use sudo to grant your backup user the required rights to read
those files.
==> /etc/sudoers
backupuser ALL=NOPASSWD: /usr/bin/rsync
I, the point is that I don't want to give my script root privilege. Too
much harm can be done using root privileges for simple task as backups.
Thi
Hi all,
I have a problem with my Dovecot installation. First, some informations:
- OS: CentOS 6.5 x86_64
- Dovecot: dovecot-2.0.9-7.el6.x86_64
Config:
mail_location = sdbox:~/dbox
user_query = SELECT username, password, 'vmail' as uid, 'vmail' as gid,
'/var/vmail/%d/%n' as home, CONCAT('*:storag
34 matches
Mail list logo
