On Fri, 11 May 2007, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 10:51 +0200, Jacek Osiecki wrote:
ago, but I don't know if there were any decisions made... Is there a plan
for using hard links in dovecot-LDA when the mail is going to be delivered
to many recepients... In fact lack of such fun
Could the below be added to the list, too, if time allows?
* Add more comments in the source files. Add comments before each
subroutine illustrating: 1. the purpose of the subroutine, 2. the
arguments of the subroutine, and 3. the return value of the subroutine.
Add some comments before
On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 11:35 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
> Will it be easy to convert from maildir to dbox when it is stable?
Convert plugin was created exactly for that. Although it doesn't yet
support preserving UIDs. I'm planning on migrating my own mail from mbox
to dbox some day, and I want t
Timo - can you make a guess as to whether or not single-instance
storage is even a possibility with 2.0?
That'd be a dbox-only feature. I've been thinking about dbox a bit
recently. I'll write a separate mail about that sometimes later. Anyway,
it's possible that it gets implemented even for v1
On Thu, 2007-04-19 at 22:00 +0200, Stefan Klatt wrote:
> What do you think about LDAP (or SQL,...) queries for each userparameter?
> Make it easyer to implement dovecot at raised and/or complex structures.
With SQL it's possible to create complex functions (at least with
PostgreSQL..). With LDAP I
On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 09:51 +0100, David Lee wrote:
> Firstly, congratutulations on the official 1.0; we are now running this
> in production.
>
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>
> > I'm hoping to release the first alphas/betas in 2-3 months, with v1.1.0
> > maybe even as early as ne
On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 11:11 +0100, Hugo Monteiro wrote:
> one thing i already discussed with you some time ago that would make
> some difference and open lots of possibilities, in my opinion, would be
> the ability to have a virtual INBOX that could be composed by a list of
> folders. That would ma
On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 10:51 +0200, Jacek Osiecki wrote:
> One question... I remember that such issue has been raised here some time
> ago, but I don't know if there were any decisions made... Is there a plan
> for using hard links in dovecot-LDA when the mail is going to be delivered
> to many rece
On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 07:49 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
> The other is single-instance storage... and I don't see a mention of
> that anywhere...
>
> Timo - can you make a guess as to whether or not single-instance
> storage
> is even a possibility with 2.0?
That'd be a dbox-only feature. I'v
On Thu, 2007-04-19 at 00:30 -0700, Timothy Martin wrote:
> Are all v1.0 patches and CVS HEAD now 1.1? Specifically I was
> wondering if the quota rewrite (http://dovecot.org/list/dovecot/2006-
> September/016134.html) is or will be in the 1.1 builds.
Not all, but quota rewrite is.
signature.
Justin McAleer writes:
On top of the performance gains, gathering disk usage for billing
changes from parsing hundreds of thousands of maildirsize files (and du
-s or equivalent for those really large maildirs, ugh) to a single sql
query,
Not sure how difficult it would be, but that would be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Robert,
>>> Features that I'm planning on implementing:
>>> - Fully supported shared mailboxes and IMAP ACL extension
>> fine...
>
>> What do you think about LDAP (or SQL,...) queries for each userparameter?
>> Make it easyer to implement dovecot
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stefan Klatt schrieb:
> Hi Timo,
>
>> Features that I'm planning on implementing:
>
>
>> - Fully supported shared mailboxes and IMAP ACL extension
> fine...
>
> What do you think about LDAP (or SQL,...) queries for each userparameter?
> Make it ea
On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 07:17 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
> Well, there is room for argument here... I would call a 'minor' version
> going from 1.0 to 1.0.1. For these increments, I totally agree.
That's a change in the micro version.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning#Numeric
Rich
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Timo,
> Features that I'm planning on implementing:
>
>
> - Fully supported shared mailboxes and IMAP ACL extension
fine...
What do you think about LDAP (or SQL,...) queries for each userparameter?
Make it easyer to implement dovecot at raised an
Are all v1.0 patches and CVS HEAD now 1.1? Specifically I was
wondering if the quota rewrite (http://dovecot.org/list/dovecot/2006-
September/016134.html) is or will be in the 1.1 builds.
.tim
On Apr 17, 2007, at 2:53 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 23:32 +0200, Robert Schett
Jorge Salamero Sanz wrote:
On Wednesday 18 April 2007 00:13, Timo Sirainen wrote:
I don't think so. I want to distribute it with Sieve plugin, and that
pretty much requires changes that come only in v2.0.
so what's the suggested setup for server-side mail filtering right now ?
If yo
Justin McAleer wrote:
I was having problems with it seemingly not making updates at all. It
would do the initial usage calculation when I logged in, but never
updated when I sent a message or expunged anything. In the past
(months ago) I also saw problems when sending a message to multiple
r
On Wednesday 18 April 2007 2:19 am, Joakim Ryden wrote:
> or run the pysieved managesieve server from here:
>
> http://woozle.org/~neale/repos/pysieved/
It has a web page now:
http://woozle.org/~neale/src/pysieved
Thanks for the kind words :)
Neale
- - Fully supported shared mailboxes and IMAP ACL extension will be very
nice
I agree wholeheartedly - this is one of the two biggest features I see
as dovecot needing to make it numero uno without argument.
The other is single-instance storage... and I don't see a mention of
that anywhere..
Charles Marcus wrote:
Richard Laager wrote:
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 21:46 +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote:
I'm planning on keeping v1.1 almost completely compatible with v1.0.
There could be some minor configuration file changes, but for most
people v1.0's dovecot.conf should work with v1.1.
Please
Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 15:41 -0400, Justin McAleer wrote:
In my testing of using sql dictionary for quota, it appears pretty
buggy. Are you aware of such problems? Either way, would you consider
reliable dictionary quota support a target for 1.1?
Actually I think
Richard Laager wrote:
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 21:46 +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote:
I'm planning on keeping v1.1 almost completely compatible with v1.0.
There could be some minor configuration file changes, but for most
people v1.0's dovecot.conf should work with v1.1.
Please, this needs to be "Eve
On 18 Apr 2007, at 11:11, Hugo Monteiro wrote:
2 - If the list of folders could be a wildcard, allow POP users to
retrieve ALL their messages, even if they're also regular IMAP based
webmail users.
What a fantastic idea! I have users that would love to be able to
use webmail when out of th
Timo Sirainen wrote:
> Features that I'm planning on implementing:
>
> - Fully supported shared mailboxes and IMAP ACL extension
> - Replace Squat FTS indexes with my new design
> - Case-insensitive searches with non-ASCII text as well
> - Maybe add support for all kinds of IMAP extensions that
Richard Laager wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 21:46 +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>
>> I'm planning on keeping v1.1 almost completely compatible with v1.0.
>> There could be some minor configuration file changes, but for most
>> people v1.0's dovecot.conf should work with v1.1.
>>
>
> Please,
Firstly, congratutulations on the official 1.0; we are now running this
in production.
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> I'm hoping to release the first alphas/betas in 2-3 months, with v1.1.0
> maybe even as early as next summer. [...]
Quick check: Is "next summer" envisaged as 2007
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Timo Sirainen wrote:
I think I won't do any actual releases until it's mostly feature
complete. Then maybe v1.1.alpha1 or v1.1.beta1. So if you want to test
it before then, use CVS or the nightly snapshots.
[...]
I'm hoping to release the first alphas/betas in 2-3 months
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:04:09 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
JSS> On Wednesday 18 April 2007 00:13, Timo Sirainen wrote:
JSS> > I don't think so. I want to distribute it with Sieve plugin, and
JSS> > that pretty much requires changes that come only in v2.0.
JSS>
JSS> so what's the suggested setup
On Wednesday 18 April 2007 00:13, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> I don't think so. I want to distribute it with Sieve plugin, and that
> pretty much requires changes that come only in v2.0.
so what's the suggested setup for server-side mail filtering right now ?
On Tuesday 17 April 2007 16:13, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 22:59 +0100, David Anderson wrote:
> > MANAGESIEVE
>
> I don't think so.
In the meantime you can use pysieved. The 1.0 release should be out any day
now.
http://woozle.org/~neale/src/pysieved
Neale
On Tuesday, April 17 at 05:58 PM, quoth Sergey:
I'd like dovecot to have option '-e' to edit configs like postfix has.
I understand dovecot configs are much more complex and have nested blocks.
But may be double-colon notation to qualify identifiers by block names
will work, like:
---
dovecot -e
> I want to update index file handling to use less locks and
> update dovecot.index file less often. The file formats would
> still stay backwards compatible with v1.0. After this I'm
> hoping to get index files working well with NFS even with
> attribute cache enabled.
Music to my ears - as i
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 21:46 +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> I'm planning on keeping v1.1 almost completely compatible with v1.0.
> There could be some minor configuration file changes, but for most
> people v1.0's dovecot.conf should work with v1.1.
Please, this needs to be "Everyone's v1.0 dovecot.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Timo Sirainen schrieb:
> On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 23:32 +0200, Robert Schetterer wrote:
>> will you include some quota warn code to lda like maildrop does ?
>
> There's already a patch for that in v1.0. So yes, I'll most likely
> include that to v1.1 onc
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 22:59 +0100, David Anderson wrote:
> Sorry... I know about and am using the sieve plugin... I should have
> said MANAGESIEVE. I realise there's a patch for that, but I was
> wondering if something's going to make it into 1.1.
I don't think so. I want to distribute it with S
On Tuesday 17 Apr 2007, Brad wrote:
> Dovecot has had Sieve support for quite some time. It is mentioned on
> the download page.
>
> "Download Sieve plugin v1.0.1 for Dovecot's local delivery agent."
>
> http://wiki.dovecot.org/LDA/Sieve
Sorry... I know about and am using the sieve plugin... I sho
I'd like dovecot to have option '-e' to edit configs like postfix has.
I understand dovecot configs are much more complex and have nested blocks.
But may be double-colon notation to qualify identifiers by block names
will work, like:
---
dovecot -e 'socket listen::client::path=/tmp/dovecot-auth-cli
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 23:32 +0200, Robert Schetterer wrote:
> will you include some quota warn code to lda like maildrop does ?
There's already a patch for that in v1.0. So yes, I'll most likely
include that to v1.1 once it gets ported.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed mess
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 22:30:38 +0100
David Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In the 1.1 plans
> (http://dovecot.org/list/dovecot/2007-April/021974.html) I don't see
> any mention of sieve... is this intentional? Sieve support is a
> priority for me... I'm going to have to see if I can get
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Timo Sirainen schrieb:
> I think I won't do any actual releases until it's mostly feature
> complete. Then maybe v1.1.alpha1 or v1.1.beta1. So if you want to test
> it before then, use CVS or the nightly snapshots.
>
> I'm planning on keeping v1.1 alm
In the 1.1 plans
(http://dovecot.org/list/dovecot/2007-April/021974.html) I don't see
any mention of sieve... is this intentional? Sieve support is a
priority for me... I'm going to have to see if I can get it via exim's
support if dovecot's not going to add it in 1.1.
Cheers,
David
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 15:41 -0400, Justin McAleer wrote:
>
> In my testing of using sql dictionary for quota, it appears pretty
> buggy. Are you aware of such problems? Either way, would you consider
> reliable dictionary quota support a target for 1.1?
Actually I think I did it today. The big
Timo Sirainen wrote:
Features that I'm planning on implementing:
- Fully supported shared mailboxes and IMAP ACL extension
- Replace Squat FTS indexes with my new design
- Case-insensitive searches with non-ASCII text as well
- Maybe add support for all kinds of IMAP extensions that can be
I think I won't do any actual releases until it's mostly feature
complete. Then maybe v1.1.alpha1 or v1.1.beta1. So if you want to test
it before then, use CVS or the nightly snapshots.
I'm planning on keeping v1.1 almost completely compatible with v1.0.
There could be some minor configuration fil
45 matches
Mail list logo
