On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 14:59 -0500, Alan Ferrency wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2009, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 14:49 -0500, Alan Ferrency wrote:
> >
> > > Do you think the "idle process holds a lock open forever" problem that
> > > you recently patched for pop3 could also affect i
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 14:49 -0500, Alan Ferrency wrote:
>
> > Do you think the "idle process holds a lock open forever" problem that
> > you recently patched for pop3 could also affect imap?
>
> It shouldn't. The mailbox is unlocked after each command is
On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 14:49 -0500, Alan Ferrency wrote:
> Do you think the "idle process holds a lock open forever" problem that
> you recently patched for pop3 could also affect imap?
It shouldn't. The mailbox is unlocked after each command is finished.
But of course if the client sends a comman
> >>> Hello, I'm preparing to convert from qpopper + UW-IMAP to dovecot.
> >>> So far testing has gone very well. One problem we haven't figured
> >>> out is that long-running POP sessions keep the mailbox locked, so that
> >>> the MDA times out while trying to deliver.
> >
> > We see this as well
A small update regarding this patch:
We've patched 1.1.8 with the primary pop3 lock timeout change, and
it's in use on several hundred FreeBSD servers without any known
problems so far.
Thanks for the solution!
Alan Ferrency
pair Networks, Inc.
a...@pair.com
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, Timo Sirainen w
On 2/12/2009, Rob Mangiafico (rm...@lexiconn.com) wrote:
> ok, thanks. Has anyone tried patching against 1.1.11? Any patch file
> for it? We just spent a few months transitioning from uw imap to
> dovecot 1.1, so we would rather not jump into 1.2 at the moment.
> Thanks.
I really don't think upgra
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2/12/2009, Rob Mangiafico (rm...@lexiconn.com) wrote:
I mean it will probably work. I'm trying to get v1.1 to a deep feature
freeze.
Do you think this pop3 lock issue could be applied to 1.1?
I think above he said 'not officially, but that you c
On 2/12/2009, Rob Mangiafico (rm...@lexiconn.com) wrote:
>> I mean it will probably work. I'm trying to get v1.1 to a deep feature
>> freeze.
> Do you think this pop3 lock issue could be applied to 1.1?
I think above he said 'not officially, but that you could apply the
patch yourself'.
Best bet
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Implemented for v1.2, probably apply to v1.1 also:
http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-1.2/rev/6f29380ba3a0
http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-1.2/rev/ea9a186d64f9
I mean it will probably work. I'm trying to get v1.1 to a deep feature
freeze.
Do you think this po
On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 09:28 -0500, Alan Ferrency wrote:
> Thanks.
>
> More questions about the first patch:
>
> Is it necessary to apply this patch in 1.1, if we are using
> "pop3_no_flag_updates = yes"?
Probably not.
> (And, is it compatible with
> pop3_no_flag_updates in 1.2?)
Yes.
sign
Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 14:51 -0500, Alan Ferrency wrote:
One problem which might be making this worse than it needs to be, is
the fact that mbox_lock_flock in mbox-lock.c is not using a blocking
flock(); instead, it's polling for a non-blocking lock. This technique
can cause
Thanks.
More questions about the first patch:
Is it necessary to apply this patch in 1.1, if we are using
"pop3_no_flag_updates = yes"? (And, is it compatible with
pop3_no_flag_updates in 1.2?)
Updating messages as "seen" was confusing to users who accessed their
mail with both POP and IMAP, so
On Feb 4, 2009, at 9:02 PM, Mark Costlow wrote:
http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-1.2/rev/6f29380ba3a0
http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-1.2/rev/ea9a186d64f9
Are both of these patches needed for the "unlock after a few seconds"
feature, or just the 2nd one?
I ask because the description of the 1st on
On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 03:37:38PM -0500, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 15:06 -0500, Alan Ferrency wrote:
> > The "unlock after a few seconds" option would be great.
>
> Implemented for v1.2, probably apply to v1.1 also:
>
> http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-1.2/rev/6f29380ba3a0
> http
Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 14:55 -0800, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>> Timo Sirainen wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 13:23 -0800, Seth Mattinen wrote:
Like imapproxy which holds the connection for subsequent requests to
avoid the short-lived HTTP connection issue. I certainly
On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 14:55 -0800, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> Timo Sirainen wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 13:23 -0800, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> >> Like imapproxy which holds the connection for subsequent requests to
> >> avoid the short-lived HTTP connection issue. I certainly recommend it
> >> for sq
Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 13:23 -0800, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>> Like imapproxy which holds the connection for subsequent requests to
>> avoid the short-lived HTTP connection issue. I certainly recommend it
>> for squirrelmail installations since squirrelmail can't IDLE the connect
On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 13:23 -0800, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> Like imapproxy which holds the connection for subsequent requests to
> avoid the short-lived HTTP connection issue. I certainly recommend it
> for squirrelmail installations since squirrelmail can't IDLE the connection.
I've heard imapproxy
I mean it will probably work. I'm trying to get v1.1 to a deep feature
freeze.
On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 16:41 -0500, Alan Ferrency wrote:
> Thanks!
>
> Do you mean you will probably apply it to 1.1, or only that it will
> probably also work on the 1.1 branch?
>
> I'll try to get this tested soon.
>
Thanks!
Do you mean you will probably apply it to 1.1, or only that it will
probably also work on the 1.1 branch?
I'll try to get this tested soon.
Alan Ferrency
pair Networks, Inc.
a...@pair.com
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 15:06 -0500, Alan Ferrency wrote
Justin Krejci wrote:
>>> Could it be some (older?) webmail clients that use pop3 instead of imap?
>> I wouldn't expect a webmail client to hold a pop3 connection open
>> across multiple web requests. We have standard webmail clients
>> available for customer use, but they use IMAP. With the frequ
> > Could it be some (older?) webmail clients that use pop3 instead of imap?
>
> I wouldn't expect a webmail client to hold a pop3 connection open
> across multiple web requests. We have standard webmail clients
> available for customer use, but they use IMAP. With the frequency
> we're seeing th
On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 14:10 -0500, Rob Mangiafico wrote:
> Is there a global timeout we can set that will close any pop3 connection
> after say 15 minutes?
POP3 client is disconnected after not doing anything for 10 minutes. I
don't see how this could be changed to work any differently without
br
On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 15:06 -0500, Alan Ferrency wrote:
> The "unlock after a few seconds" option would be great.
Implemented for v1.2, probably apply to v1.1 also:
http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-1.2/rev/6f29380ba3a0
http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-1.2/rev/ea9a186d64f9
signature.asc
Description:
> > > But I've never before heard POP3 clients behaving that way, so I'd like
> > > to know what exactly are they doing. Are they not sending anything? Are
> > > they NOOPing? I don't see any reason for them to be doing either..
> >
> > In the cases I've looked into, the client seems to be connecte
> > > Why doesn't this happen with imap? Why can't we make pop3 do what
> > > imap does? Even if it's inefficient, it's better than hanging all
> > > incoming mail delivery while deliver eats up our local concurrency
> > > limits.
> >
> > IMAP unlocks mbox after each command is done. But POP3 cli
On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 14:58 -0500, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 14:51 -0500, Alan Ferrency wrote:
> > One problem which might be making this worse than it needs to be, is
> > the fact that mbox_lock_flock in mbox-lock.c is not using a blocking
> > flock(); instead, it's polling for
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> > Why doesn't this happen with imap? Why can't we make pop3 do what
> > imap does? Even if it's inefficient, it's better than hanging all
> > incoming mail delivery while deliver eats up our local concurrency
> > limits.
>
> IMAP unlocks mbox after each
On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 14:51 -0500, Alan Ferrency wrote:
> One problem which might be making this worse than it needs to be, is
> the fact that mbox_lock_flock in mbox-lock.c is not using a blocking
> flock(); instead, it's polling for a non-blocking lock. This technique
> can cause lock starvation
Rob Mangiafico wrote:
>On Wed, 4 Feb 2009, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>> On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 11:17 -0700, Mark Costlow wrote:
>>> Hello, I'm preparing to convert from qpopper + UW-IMAP to dovecot.
>>> So far testing has gone very well. One problem we haven't figured
>>> out is that long-running POP s
>>
>> Switch to Maildir and the problem goes away. The issue is that the mbox
>> file is read-locked when the first message is read. And since the POP3
>> client most likely just keeps reading messages for the entire session,
>> the mbox file kept read-locked all the time. Can't really be fixed
>>
On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 12:07 -0700, Mark Costlow wrote:
> > Switch to Maildir and the problem goes away. The issue is that the mbox
> > file is read-locked when the first message is read. And since the POP3
> > client most likely just keeps reading messages for the entire session,
> > the mbox file
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 11:17 -0700, Mark Costlow wrote:
Hello, I'm preparing to convert from qpopper + UW-IMAP to dovecot.
So far testing has gone very well. One problem we haven't figured
out is that long-running POP sessions keep the mailbox locked, so
On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 01:25:21PM -0500, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 11:17 -0700, Mark Costlow wrote:
> > Hello, I'm preparing to convert from qpopper + UW-IMAP to dovecot.
> > So far testing has gone very well. One problem we haven't figured
> > out is that long-running POP sess
On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 11:17 -0700, Mark Costlow wrote:
> Hello, I'm preparing to convert from qpopper + UW-IMAP to dovecot.
> So far testing has gone very well. One problem we haven't figured
> out is that long-running POP sessions keep the mailbox locked, so that
> the MDA times out while trying
Hello, I'm preparing to convert from qpopper + UW-IMAP to dovecot.
So far testing has gone very well. One problem we haven't figured
out is that long-running POP sessions keep the mailbox locked, so that
the MDA times out while trying to deliver. We're using "maildrop" as
our MDA if that matters.
36 matches
Mail list logo
