Udo Rader wrote:
Michal Soltys wrote:
Timo Sirainen wrote:
http://dovecot.org/releases/1.1/dovecot-1.1.11.tar.gz
http://dovecot.org/releases/1.1/dovecot-1.1.11.tar.gz.sig
- If mail_chroot is set, don't fail at startup in dump-capability.
Now whenever a system user (using passwd passdb/u
Michal Soltys wrote:
Now whenever a system user (using passwd passdb/userdb) is trying to
read the mail, it tries to chroot without stripping initial chroot
specific path components
That of course applies to any non-explicitly overriden chroot through
userdb. Doesn't have to be passwd.
Michal Soltys wrote:
Timo Sirainen wrote:
http://dovecot.org/releases/1.1/dovecot-1.1.11.tar.gz
http://dovecot.org/releases/1.1/dovecot-1.1.11.tar.gz.sig
- If mail_chroot is set, don't fail at startup in dump-capability.
Now whenever a system user (using passwd passdb/userdb) is trying t
Timo Sirainen wrote:
http://dovecot.org/releases/1.1/dovecot-1.1.11.tar.gz
http://dovecot.org/releases/1.1/dovecot-1.1.11.tar.gz.sig
- If mail_chroot is set, don't fail at startup in dump-capability.
Now whenever a system user (using passwd passdb/userdb) is trying to
read the mail,
On Feb 7, 2009, at 12:06 PM, Brad wrote:
On Saturday 07 February 2009 04:02:56 Frank Cusack wrote:
Well now, there's lot of code you might see which isn't correct, e.g.
the very common #!/bin/sh but the code is actually a bash script.
Being someone that has to fix this stuff I see A LOT of peo
On Saturday 07 February 2009 04:02:56 Frank Cusack wrote:
> Well now, there's lot of code you might see which isn't correct, e.g.
> the very common #!/bin/sh but the code is actually a bash script.
Being someone that has to fix this stuff I see A LOT of people improperly
writting bash scripts and
On February 7, 2009 2:19:59 AM -0500 Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Feb 7, 2009, at 1:47 AM, Frank Cusack wrote:
for (i = j = 0;
removed this warning, and removed my doubts :-)
Should be
for (i = (j = 0);
a = b = ... is not legal, although gcc does accept it.
Really? I've seen a=b=c like co
On Feb 7, 2009, at 1:47 AM, Frank Cusack wrote:
for (i = j = 0;
removed this warning, and removed my doubts :-)
Should be
for (i = (j = 0);
a = b = ... is not legal, although gcc does accept it.
Really? I've seen a=b=c like code for a long time. But I can't say
exactly where C99 would
On Feb 7, 2009, at 1:47 AM, Frank Cusack wrote:
for (i = j = 0;
removed this warning, and removed my doubts :-)
Should be
for (i = (j = 0);
a = b = ... is not legal, although gcc does accept it.
Really? I've seen a=b=c like code for a long time. But I can't say
exactly where C99 would
On Feb 7, 2009, at 1:48 AM, Frank Cusack wrote:
On February 5, 2009 4:14:24 PM -0500 Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 21:59 +0100, Peter Lindgren wrote:
There is a similar warning for mailbox-list-fs-iter.c, but as far
as I
can tell the warning is unjustified?
mailbox-list-fs-ite
On February 5, 2009 4:14:24 PM -0500 Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 21:59 +0100, Peter Lindgren wrote:
There is a similar warning for mailbox-list-fs-iter.c, but as far as I
can tell the warning is unjustified?
mailbox-list-fs-iter.c:483: warning: `real_path' might be used
uninitia
On February 5, 2009 9:59:10 PM +0100 Peter Lindgren
wrote:
maildir-sync-index.c:295: warning: `j' might be used uninitialized in
this function
In function maildir_sync_mail_keywords, j is assumed to be initialized to
0 I think. It is used in line 339 in the for statement.
Changing to
for
On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 21:59 +0100, Peter Lindgren wrote:
> Timo Sirainen skrev:
> >
> > Hopefully this v1.1 release will last a few months.
>
> Builing on OpenBSD 4.4 (which has an ancient compiler, now I know), I
> got some warnings. There is one warning not related to this compiler's
> pointe
Timo Sirainen skrev:
Hopefully this v1.1 release will last a few months.
Builing on OpenBSD 4.4 (which has an ancient compiler, now I know), I
got some warnings. There is one warning not related to this compiler's
pointer handling which is worth considering I think:
maildir-sync-index.c:29
Timo Sirainen wrote:
http://dovecot.org/releases/1.1/dovecot-1.1.11.tar.gz
http://dovecot.org/releases/1.1/dovecot-1.1.11.tar.gz.sig
I've refreshed the ManageSieve patch for the new release:
http://www.rename-it.nl/dovecot/1.1/dovecot-1.1.11-managesieve-0.10.5.diff.gz
http://www.rename-it.nl/d
On Feb 3, 2009, at 5:53 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
http://dovecot.org/releases/1.1/dovecot-1.1.11.tar.gz
http://dovecot.org/releases/1.1/dovecot-1.1.11.tar.gz.sig
Just FYI, ONLY SINCE UPGRADING TO 1.1.11 from 1.1.10, a 'killall
dovecot' yields this...
Feb 5 07:59:23 G520X2 dovecot: Killed
http://dovecot.org/releases/1.1/dovecot-1.1.11.tar.gz
http://dovecot.org/releases/1.1/dovecot-1.1.11.tar.gz.sig
Hopefully this v1.1 release will last a few months.
- IMAP: PERMANENTFLAGS list didn't contain \*, causing some clients
not to save keywords.
- dbox: INTERNALD
17 matches
Mail list logo
