On April 4, 2007 6:35:27 PM -0700 Dan Price <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We're still working on debugging why our Kerberos setup isn't working--
Thanks to Timo we have auth_gssapi_hostname, but we're still not quite
there... our Kerberos engineers are looking into it.
There was a recent thread on
On Fri 30 Mar 2007 at 06:07PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> http://dovecot.org/releases/dovecot-1.0.rc29.tar.gz
> http://dovecot.org/releases/dovecot-1.0.rc29.tar.gz.sig
>
> Probably one more RC after this.
Hey all-- for those interested in deploying 1.0rc29, I just wanted to
report that I deployed 1.0
I really have to agree with Kenneth here.
Specially after comments are made that the program has likely very few more
bug fixes needed before going gold.. Adding new features, specially if they
require any changes to the config file, makes little sense.
Right!
I was tracking the RC branches fo
Francisco Reyes wrote:
I really have to agree with Kenneth here.
Specially after comments are made that the program has likely very few
more bug fixes needed before going gold..
Adding new features, specially if they require any changes to the
config file, makes little sense.
Right!
I was t
At 8:32 AM -0400 3/31/07, Jeff A. Earickson wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Frank Cusack wrote:
FWIW, in my experience, all 1.0 software is utter shit and should be
avoided like the plague if stability is a requirement. So 0.99, 1.0, etc
is all meaningless to me.
1.0 = shit is almost always true
Jeff A. Earickson wrote:
My one concern about dovecot is the "feeping creaturism" in the code.
Why does it have to be an LDA? That is what procmail is for. And
designing your own mailbox format (dbox?) seems dangerous too.
Both features were done for paying customer. Dovecot LDA is lot more
On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 08:32:40AM -0400, Jeff A. Earickson wrote:
> My one concern about dovecot is the "feeping creaturism" in the code.
> Why does it have to be an LDA? That is what procmail is for. And
> designing your own mailbox format (dbox?) seems dangerous too. I would
> have it stick t
Dean Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have to agree with you on this. I'm relatively new with Dovecot and
> have been evaluating it for deployment in a production environment. I
> must say that Dovecot has the most unusual development method of a
> large-scale project I've seen.
>
> There
Geert Hendrickx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 05:47:30PM +0200, Robert Schetterer wrote:
>> HI Timo,
>> you added the wiki in txt format to the docs dir,
>> this again brokes my suse spec *g
>
> What annoys me more (as dovecot maintainer for pkgsrc) is that the example
> co
On Saturday March 31, 2007 at 08:32:40 (AM) Jeff A. Earickson wrote:
> My one concern about dovecot is the "feeping creaturism" in the code.
> Why does it have to be an LDA? That is what procmail is for. And designing
> your own mailbox format (dbox?) seems dangerous too. I would have it
> stic
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Frank Cusack wrote:
FWIW, in my experience, all 1.0 software is utter shit and should be
avoided like the plague if stability is a requirement. So 0.99, 1.0, etc
is all meaningless to me.
1.0 = shit is almost always true for payware IMHO. Open source has a far
better tr
--On Saturday, March 31, 2007 9:32 AM +0200 John and Catherine Allen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
- "mind share in the boardroom" is not the only possible goal for a
project
I was thinking of installed base, not commercial users per se.
Kenneth Porter wrote:
> That's fine for isolated users supporting only themselves. But it won't
win any mind share in the boardroom. If you want widespread deployment
to get proper testing (and hence a larger user base) you need a version
number that gives business people the confidence to inst
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 17:04:58 -0700
Kenneth Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's fine for isolated users supporting only themselves. But it won't win
> any mind share in the boardroom. If you want widespread deployment to get
> proper testing (and hence a larger user base) you need a versio
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 16:05 -0700, Kenneth Porter wrote:
> --On Friday, March 30, 2007 3:24 PM -0700 Frank Cusack
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> This is why I'm still using 0.99. The RC's still look like betas and I
> >> have no idea which one (if any) is less a regression than any other.
>
On 2007 Mar 30 (Fri) at 20:56:43 -0700 (-0700), Kenneth Porter wrote:
:--On Friday, March 30, 2007 8:26 PM -0700 Peter Hessler
:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:
:>This sort of decision is exactly why I'm the mail admin and they are
:>not. They know things at the boardroom level, and they are
:>(presu
--On Friday, March 30, 2007 8:26 PM -0700 Peter Hessler
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This sort of decision is exactly why I'm the mail admin and they are
not. They know things at the boardroom level, and they are
(presumably) good at it. I don't look at things from the boardroom
level. However
On 2007 Mar 30 (Fri) at 17:04:58 -0700 (-0700), Kenneth Porter wrote:
:That's fine for isolated users supporting only themselves. But it won't win
:any mind share in the boardroom. If you want widespread deployment to get
:proper testing (and hence a larger user base) you need a version number
:
Quoting Kenneth Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
That's fine for isolated users supporting only themselves. But it won't
win any mind share in the boardroom. If you want widespread deployment
to get proper testing (and hence a larger user base) you need a version
number that gives business people the
Quoting Dean Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I have to agree with you on this. I'm relatively new with Dovecot and
have been evaluating it for deployment in a production environment. I
must say that Dovecot has the most unusual development method of a
large-scale project I've seen.
I've seen abo
--On Friday, March 30, 2007 5:22 PM -0700 Frank Cusack
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Please don't mistake my email for any involvement with dovecot
development. AFAIK, Timo is the one and only developer. That's sure to
win over your board and boards worldwide.
If you mean a single developer mig
On March 30, 2007 5:04:58 PM -0700 Kenneth Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
--On Friday, March 30, 2007 4:52 PM -0700 Frank Cusack
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's very easy. In the dovecot world, "rc" means "development version".
Or are you too stupid and ignorant to learn how the versioning
--On Friday, March 30, 2007 4:52 PM -0700 Frank Cusack
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's very easy. In the dovecot world, "rc" means "development version".
Or are you too stupid and ignorant to learn how the versioning works
for dovecot. (Sorry, that's directed to another dovecot thread; I'm
no
--On Friday, March 30, 2007 4:41 PM -0700 Frank Cusack
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You are going to have to do the exact same testing from 0.99->1.0 as
you would from 0.99->1.0rc29. Caveat emptor with open source software;
the responsibility is upon YOU to do your own testing.
Actually, no. A
On March 30, 2007 7:31:15 PM -0400 Dean Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 04:05:55PM -0700, Kenneth Porter wrote:
> A few new small features and lots of index/mbox fixes. I've been
> heavily stress testing this release, so I think it should be about
> perfect. :)
*Featu
On March 30, 2007 4:05:55 PM -0700 Kenneth Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
--On Friday, March 30, 2007 3:24 PM -0700 Frank Cusack
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is why I'm still using 0.99. The RC's still look like betas and I
have no idea which one (if any) is less a regression than any oth
On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 04:05:55PM -0700, Kenneth Porter wrote:
> >A few new small features and lots of index/mbox fixes. I've been heavily
> >stress testing this release, so I think it should be about perfect. :)
>
> *Features*?! In an rc?! No wonder there's no convergence.
>
> [snip]
>
> So pl
--On Friday, March 30, 2007 3:24 PM -0700 Frank Cusack
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is why I'm still using 0.99. The RC's still look like betas and I
have no idea which one (if any) is less a regression than any other.
They ARE betas. That's no reason to stay with 0.99. It's effectively
On March 30, 2007 2:02:09 PM -0700 Kenneth Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
--On Friday, March 30, 2007 6:34 PM +0200 Nicolas STRANSKY
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Changes will be certainly minimal after v1.0 final release, you can't
blame Timo for trying to make something more and more usable a
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:02:09 -0700
Kenneth Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is why I'm still using 0.99.
Which Timo describes as being so old as to be effectively a different
program..
--
Brian Morrison
bdm at fenrir dot org dot uk
"Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling w
--On Friday, March 30, 2007 6:34 PM +0200 Nicolas STRANSKY
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Changes will be certainly minimal after v1.0 final release, you can't
blame Timo for trying to make something more and more usable and adapted
to everybody's needs while v1.0 is still in development..
"Relea
On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 07:35:40PM +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> I hate how badly the configuration file updating works everywhere (well,
> or at least in Debian). If the changes don't really change any existing
> settings and won't conflict with the modified parts of the config file,
> there's
On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 12:35:09PM -0400, John Peacock wrote:
> What part of "Release Candidate" isn't clear here... ;-)
"release candidate" equals "latest supported release" in this case as well.
If they were 2.0 rc's, I'd continue running the latest 1.whatever release
until done.
Geert
On 30.3.2007, at 19.23, Geert Hendrickx wrote:
On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 05:47:30PM +0200, Robert Schetterer wrote:
HI Timo,
you added the wiki in txt format to the docs dir,
this again brokes my suse spec *g
What annoys me more (as dovecot maintainer for pkgsrc) is that the
example
config fi
Geert Hendrickx wrote:
What annoys me more (as dovecot maintainer for pkgsrc) is that the example
config file changes with (almost) every release. The changes are mostly
just in comments, but it makes users have to merge their configuration on
every update.
What part of "Release Candidate" isn
Le 30.03.2007 18:23, Geert Hendrickx a écrit :
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 05:47:30PM +0200, Robert Schetterer wrote:
>> HI Timo,
>> you added the wiki in txt format to the docs dir,
>> this again brokes my suse spec *g
>
> What annoys me more (as dovecot maintainer for pkgsrc) is that the example
>
On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 05:47:30PM +0200, Robert Schetterer wrote:
> HI Timo,
> you added the wiki in txt format to the docs dir,
> this again brokes my suse spec *g
What annoys me more (as dovecot maintainer for pkgsrc) is that the example
config file changes with (almost) every release. The cha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Timo Sirainen schrieb:
> http://dovecot.org/releases/dovecot-1.0.rc29.tar.gz
> http://dovecot.org/releases/dovecot-1.0.rc29.tar.gz.sig
>
> Probably one more RC after this.
>
> * Security fix: If zlib plugin was loaded, it was possible to open
>
http://dovecot.org/releases/dovecot-1.0.rc29.tar.gz
http://dovecot.org/releases/dovecot-1.0.rc29.tar.gz.sig
Probably one more RC after this.
* Security fix: If zlib plugin was loaded, it was possible to open
gzipped mbox files outside the user's mail directory.
+ Added
39 matches
Mail list logo
