On 28.11.2013, at 12.22, Kai Hendry wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Whilst trying to come up with a minimal configuration for Dovecot:
> http://dabase.com/blog/Minimal_Dovecot/
>
> I noticed the configuration syntax is a bit admin unfriendly. It's easy
> to get an infamous Error code 89.
If Dovecot can
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 05:20:38PM -0800, Joseph Tam wrote:
> the horse), but that doesn't make it less complex -- it just hides it.
> (See doveconf -a if you want to see what you're shorthanding).
I'm all for hiding complexity. Though `doveconf -a` is interesting to
see what I'm up against. Thank
Kai Hendry wrote:
Whilst trying to come up with a minimal configuration for Dovecot:
http://dabase.com/blog/Minimal_Dovecot/
I think your characterization of the complexity of dovecot configuration
by simply counting configuration lines to get it working is off base.
It's conceivable to have
Hi there,
Whilst trying to come up with a minimal configuration for Dovecot:
http://dabase.com/blog/Minimal_Dovecot/
I noticed the configuration syntax is a bit admin unfriendly. It's easy
to get an infamous Error code 89.
Is there any back story to the grammar or language this configuration is
