> On 24 Apr 2018, at 10.33, Michael Büker wrote:
>
> Hi, everyone!
>
> This is a follow-up to "Looks like a bug to me: Dovecot ignores Maildir/new
> timestamp" from Fredrik Roubert on 01.12.2015:
> https://www.dovecot.org/list/dovecot/2015-December/102585.html
>
> I've run into the same prob
Hi, everyone!
This is a follow-up to "Looks like a bug to me: Dovecot ignores
Maildir/new timestamp" from Fredrik Roubert on 01.12.2015:
https://www.dovecot.org/list/dovecot/2015-December/102585.html
I've run into the same problem as Fredrik: When manipulating my Maildir
locally with mutt, de
On Sunday 18 May 2014 18:21:23 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> In the other cases, the configurable parameter is supposed to be a path
> to a file. So you give it a path, beginning with "/".
>
> The certificate parameter takes string, so you would have had to
> copy/paste your certificate in there. But
On 05/17/2014 11:57 AM, Boris wrote:
>
>> no - < reads a file and without you are supposed to directly
>> paste your certificate in the configuration instead point
>> to a file
> I see. In all other places I know dovecot references files simply with "/" so
> I
> still wonder what is so different
On Saturday 17 May 2014 17:41:05 Reindl Harald wrote:
> because there is a documentation and the only correct answer
> not following that is "you are in the area of undefined bahvior"
The documentation does not(!) state this. It could be another way of including
the file.
> that's not a dovecot
Am 17.05.2014 17:31, schrieb Boris:
> Why so aggressive?
because there is a documentation and the only correct answer
not following that is "you are in the area of undefined bahvior"
> I just noticed that I missed the "<" and wondered whether
> if makes a difference because it seems to work wi
Why so aggressive? I just noticed that I missed the "<" and wondered whether
if makes a difference because it seems to work without it. I know where to find
the documentation but searching for this question is a bit hard since I can't
search for "<". And the wiki doesn't explain the syntax anywa
Am 17.05.2014 17:07, schrieb Boris:
> The default configuration file for Dovecot in Debian uses:
> ssl_cert =
> I checked my current configuration and I use:
> ssl_cert =/path/to/cert
>
> What is the difference? (pipe?) And is the former better somehow?
a complete pointless question
* Debian
The default configuration file for Dovecot in Debian uses:
ssl_cert =
SH> On 4/30/2013 1:07 PM, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 30 at 08:04 AM, quoth Gregory Sloop:
>>> Any ideas where to look next, what I might do to force dovecot to
>>> forget message ID's etc - that might force it to read the whole
>>> mailbox file again?
>>
>> Find the dovecot.index fi
First - I'm subscribed to the list, please don't reply all and send
people two copies of your email.
On 2013-05-01 11:00 AM, Gregory Sloop wrote:
I don't have to shotgun a million lines of logs and other irrelevant
data for people here to troll through.
Why would anyone need to troll through
On 4/30/2013 1:07 PM, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 30 at 08:04 AM, quoth Gregory Sloop:
>> Any ideas where to look next, what I might do to force dovecot to
>> forget message ID's etc - that might force it to read the whole
>> mailbox file again?
>
> Find the dovecot.index files for tha
CM> On 2013-04-30 11:04 AM, Gregory Sloop wrote:
>> I'm still in the "what's wrong" stage of figuring out what's going on.
>>
>> But I've got a mail user who isn't getting new messages.
>>
>> Postfix accepts it and drops it in the users mbox. [This is verified.
>> If I tail the Mbox, I can see th
On 2013-04-30 11:04 AM, Gregory Sloop wrote:
I'm still in the "what's wrong" stage of figuring out what's going on.
But I've got a mail user who isn't getting new messages.
Postfix accepts it and drops it in the users mbox. [This is verified.
If I tail the Mbox, I can see the new messages.]
esday, 30 April 2013 8:34 PM
Subject: [Dovecot] Dovecot vs MBox
I'm still in the "what's wrong" stage of figuring out what's going on.
But I've got a mail user who isn't getting new messages.
Postfix accepts it and drops it in the users mbox. [This is verifie
On Tuesday, April 30 at 08:04 AM, quoth Gregory Sloop:
Any ideas where to look next, what I might do to force dovecot to
forget message ID's etc - that might force it to read the whole
mailbox file again?
Find the dovecot.index files for that mbox and delete them. They will
be re-generated fr
I'm still in the "what's wrong" stage of figuring out what's going on.
But I've got a mail user who isn't getting new messages.
Postfix accepts it and drops it in the users mbox. [This is verified.
If I tail the Mbox, I can see the new messages.]
"Mail" will see the messages too.
But dovecot do
Am 17.01.2013 08:30, schrieb Frank Elsner:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 23:47:33 + Alexandr Sabitov wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I have compared Dovecot performance to Courier and it appears that as a POP3
>> server Dovecot is slower in 2 times but as an IMAP server it is faster in
>> 1.5 times. The same
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 23:47:33 + Alexandr Sabitov wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I have compared Dovecot performance to Courier and it appears that as a POP3
> server Dovecot is slower in 2 times but as an IMAP server it is faster in 1.5
> times. The same node (16CPUs), testing time is 30 min, please se
On 17.1.2013, at 6.23, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On 17.1.2013, at 1.47, Alexandr Sabitov
> wrote:
>
>> I do not see anything else to tweak in Dovecot to increase POP3 performance.
>> Can we all have some tips to improve it please ?
Oh, and because of Dovecot index files it has to do a bit more
On 17.1.2013, at 1.47, Alexandr Sabitov
wrote:
> I do not see anything else to tweak in Dovecot to increase POP3 performance.
> Can we all have some tips to improve it please ?
>
> mail_fsync = always
Courier POP3 does no fsyncing. Although I'm not sure how much difference it
makes with NFS.
Hi All,
I have compared Dovecot performance to Courier and it appears that as a POP3
server Dovecot is slower in 2 times but as an IMAP server it is faster in 1.5
times. The same node (16CPUs), testing time is 30 min, please see results and
dovecot configs attached.
Benchmark software is MStone
Am 15.06.2010 13:11, schrieb Bodo Schulz:
> Hello (and Moin Moin) ;)
>
> I have currently a straith Problem ...
[...]
I have yesterday compile a old Thunderbird2 Version.
This Version (2.0.0.23) works perfectly.
It is also an Bug in the used Thunderbird3 Version (3.0.4).
Thanks a lot for your
On 16.06.2010 22:16, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2010-06-16 1:22 PM, Ed W wrote:
Someone further up the thread says that this is working with Dovecot 2
though? What is different about what D2 is doing vs 1.2.11?
I dunno - all I do know is Timo said there was a TB bug, and I tend to
take his word
On 2010-06-16 1:22 PM, Ed W wrote:
> Someone further up the thread says that this is working with Dovecot 2
> though? What is different about what D2 is doing vs 1.2.11?
I dunno - all I do know is Timo said there was a TB bug, and I tend to
take his word for it.
One thing though - if the OP isn'
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 18:22 +0100, Ed W wrote:
>
> Someone further up the thread says that this is working with Dovecot 2
> though? What is different about what D2 is doing vs 1.2.11?
I doubt it's because of Dovecot version. v2.0's replies look correct,
and v1.x will most likely give exactly th
On 16/06/2010 15:50, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2010-06-16 10:23 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 10:22 +0200, Bodo Schulz wrote:
And here are a screenshot from the Thunderbird:
http://yfrog.com/j5thunderbirdip
So in TB it doesn't work.
and from Claws: htt
On 2010-06-16 10:23 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 10:22 +0200, Bodo Schulz wrote:
>> And here are a screenshot from the Thunderbird:
>> http://yfrog.com/j5thunderbirdip
>
> So in TB it doesn't work.
>
>> and from Claws: http://yfrog.com/5hclawsxp
>
> And it Claws it works. Cle
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 10:22 +0200, Bodo Schulz wrote:
> 59 lsub "" "Shared Folders.*"
Here it first lists all subscribed mailboxes.
> 60 list "" "Shared Folders.%"
> 61 list "" "Shared Folders.%.%"
Here it gets the first and second level mailboxes. (This is actually a
good idea to it this way.)
Am 16.06.2010 10:44, schrieb Robert Schetterer:
> Am 16.06.2010 10:22, schrieb Bodo Schulz:
>> Am 15.06.2010 14:34, schrieb Timo Sirainen:
>>> On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 13:11 +0200, Bodo Schulz wrote:
>>>
At this moment we have problems with access to the Public Folders.
(We use as Client the
Am 16.06.2010 10:22, schrieb Bodo Schulz:
> Am 15.06.2010 14:34, schrieb Timo Sirainen:
>> On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 13:11 +0200, Bodo Schulz wrote:
>>
>>> At this moment we have problems with access to the Public Folders.
>>> (We use as Client the actualy Thunderbird3 ...)
>>>
>>> When i want subscrib
Am 15.06.2010 14:34, schrieb Timo Sirainen:
> On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 13:11 +0200, Bodo Schulz wrote:
>
>> At this moment we have problems with access to the Public Folders.
>> (We use as Client the actualy Thunderbird3 ...)
>>
>> When i want subscribe Folders, i have no access to folder are deeper
Am 15.06.2010 14:13, schrieb Eduardo M KALINOWSKI:
> On 06/15/2010 08:11 AM, Bodo Schulz wrote:
>> When i want subscribe Folders, i have no access to folder are deeper as
>> second level!
>>
>
> I've seen this with Thunderbird 3.x (it worked fine with 2.x). I suppose
> it's a Thunderbird bug. T
On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 13:11 +0200, Bodo Schulz wrote:
> At this moment we have problems with access to the Public Folders.
> (We use as Client the actualy Thunderbird3 ...)
>
> When i want subscribe Folders, i have no access to folder are deeper as
> second level!
I'd try talking IMAP protocol d
On 06/15/2010 08:11 AM, Bodo Schulz wrote:
> When i want subscribe Folders, i have no access to folder are deeper as
> second level!
>
I've seen this with Thunderbird 3.x (it worked fine with 2.x). I suppose
it's a Thunderbird bug. To be sure, connect manually and ask for a list
of folders: htt
Am 15.06.2010 13:21, schrieb Martin Ott:
> Hi Bodo,
>
>> At this moment we have problems with access to the Public Folders.
>> (We use as Client the actualy Thunderbird3 ...)
>>
>> When i want subscribe Folders, i have no access to folder are deeper as
>> second level!
>
> I also encounterd this
Hello (and Moin Moin) ;)
I have currently a straith Problem ...
I have our IMAP-Server migrated from an old cyrus the the current stable
Version of dovecot.
In the old configuration we organized many mails (e.g. root-Stuff) in
Public Folders. They structure had nearly 5 folderlevels.
After the c
Hi everyone:
Anyone knows what are the differences (or advantages and disadvantages)
between Dovecot LDA with postfix Vs. Procmail LDA with postfix ?
--
LCC Wilberth de Jesús Pérez Segura CCSA- Administración de Servicios y
Seguridad de
nes, 18 de diciembre de 2009 15:30
> Para: Daniel Campos
> CC: dovecot@dovecot.org
> Asunto: Re: [Dovecot] Dovecot vs Exim file locking
>
> On Dec 18, 2009, at 8:41 AM, Daniel Campos wrote:
>
> > We're planning to deploy a large e-mail system storing maildirs in a NAS
Hi Ecuardo,Timo, thanks for your answers!
-Mensaje original-
De: Timo Sirainen [mailto:t...@iki.fi]
Enviado el: viernes, 18 de diciembre de 2009 15:30
Para: Daniel Campos
CC: dovecot@dovecot.org
Asunto: Re: [Dovecot] Dovecot vs Exim file locking
On Dec 18, 2009, at 8:41 AM, Daniel
On Dec 18, 2009, at 8:41 AM, Daniel Campos wrote:
> We're planning to deploy a large e-mail system storing maildirs in a NAS
> system through NFS. One of the options we're thinking on is using
> Dovecot+EXIM.
>
> As far as I've read in both project's documentation, both services implement
> locki
On Sex, 18 Dez 2009, Daniel Campos wrote:
We're planning to deploy a large e-mail system storing maildirs in a NAS
system through NFS. One of the options we're thinking on is using
Dovecot+EXIM.
As far as I've read in both project's documentation, both services implement
locking allowing multipl
Hi all:
We're planning to deploy a large e-mail system storing maildirs in a NAS
system through NFS. One of the options we're thinking on is using
Dovecot+EXIM.
As far as I've read in both project's documentation, both services implement
locking allowing multiple servers to access the same maildi
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 15:41 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
> I am testing dovecot with Outlook Mobile 5 (OM5), which is currently
> not working. OM5 connects, says "NOOP" and "CAPABILITY", does login
> correctly and simply loggs out after that telling the user that it
> could not download an
Hi,
I am testing dovecot with Outlook Mobile 5 (OM5), which is currently
not working. OM5 connects, says "NOOP" and "CAPABILITY", does login
correctly and simply loggs out after that telling the user that it
could not download any messages. When I put an imapproxy[0] in front
of dovecot, OM5 works
45 matches
Mail list logo
