Re: remote | local blocks in protocol settings

2016-01-19 Thread Nikolaos Milas
On 19/1/2016 8:54 μμ, Timo Sirainen wrote: No, this is used only when TLS SNI extension is used. It expands to the TLS SNI hostname. Typically this is only used to configure per-host TLS certificates. So, when TLS SNI extension is not used, we can skip the entire block? Like: local 127.0.

Re: remote | local blocks in protocol settings

2016-01-19 Thread Joseph Tam
Nikolaos Milas wrote: ... Pragmatically, I set it high enough so that it meets the need of most clients, then deal with problems on a case by case basis ... Thank you very much Joseph for your quite useful advice and experience. Are you monitoring using "doveadm who"? No, I occasionally loo

Re: remote | local blocks in protocol settings

2016-01-19 Thread Timo Sirainen
> On 19 Jan 2016, at 20:23, Nikolaos Milas wrote: > > On 19/1/2016 6:34 μμ, Timo Sirainen wrote: > >> The nesting must be in this order or it'll give an error: >> >> local 127.0.0.1 { >> local_name foo { >> remote 127.0.0.1 { >> protocol imap { >> } >> } >> } >> } > >

Re: remote | local blocks in protocol settings

2016-01-19 Thread Nikolaos Milas
On 19/1/2016 6:34 μμ, Timo Sirainen wrote: The nesting must be in this order or it'll give an error: local 127.0.0.1 { local_name foo { remote 127.0.0.1 { protocol imap { } } } } Please allow me to ask for clarifications: local --> Local Dovecot Server

Re: remote | local blocks in protocol settings

2016-01-19 Thread Timo Sirainen
> On 19 Jan 2016, at 16:04, Nikolaos Milas wrote: > > On 19/1/2016 3:31 μμ, Timo Sirainen wrote: > >> Change it the other way around: >> >> remote 127.0.0.1 { >> protocol imap { >> ... >> } >> } > > Thank you for your advice Timo (on "remote" blocks). > > So, the "remote" block shoul

Re: remote | local blocks in protocol settings

2016-01-19 Thread Christian Kivalo
Webmail probably just quickly opens and closes the connections, so there aren't any connections that are visible for more than a fraction of a second. On the real issue: I am trying to identify why (just recently) webmail users recently are increasingly facing the error: "ERROR : Connection dro

Re: remote | local blocks in protocol settings

2016-01-19 Thread Nikolaos Milas
On 19/1/2016 3:31 μμ, Timo Sirainen wrote: Change it the other way around: remote 127.0.0.1 { protocol imap { ... } } Thank you for your advice Timo (on "remote" blocks). So, the "remote" block should not have any parent (i.e. should not be included in any other block)? Webmai

Re: remote | local blocks in protocol settings

2016-01-19 Thread Timo Sirainen
On 19 Jan 2016, at 13:34, Nikolaos Milas wrote: > > On 15/1/2016 8:02 μμ, Nikolaos Milas wrote: > > Having received no reply, I tried using the above info by configuring: > > protocol imap { > imap_client_workarounds = "delay-newmail" > mail_plugins = quota imap_quota notify replica

Re: remote | local blocks in protocol settings

2016-01-19 Thread Nikolaos Milas
On 15/1/2016 8:02 μμ, Nikolaos Milas wrote: Where can I find detailed documentation on how "remote" & "local" blocks are used in protocol configuration to provide specific settings for particular IPs/Names? I've been searching around (wiki2, Google) but I found very few things. I also checke

remote | local blocks in protocol settings

2016-01-15 Thread Nikolaos Milas
Hello, Where can I find detailed documentation on how "remote" & "local" blocks are used in protocol configuration to provide specific settings for particular IPs/Names? I've been searching around (wiki2, Google) but I found very few things. I also checked in the conf.d directory of the inst