On 3/5/2010 1:17 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
> of the myriad of lists im' on and have been on for many many years,
> only nanog and bind lists dont use tags.
postfix doesn't, and I know you're on there (you replied to the
'copy-to-sent' thread with some helpful hints)... ;)
--
Best regards,
Charles
On 05/03/2010 04:43, Tony Nelson wrote:
On 10-03-04 20:22:15, Frank Cusack wrote:
On 3/4/10 6:42 PM -0500 Tony Nelson wrote:
> Looking at the source, I see that there are no options. It tarpits
> a bit, but currently has no limit on the number of attempts. I'll
> see what I can do.
I think it
On 04/03/2010 20:59, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Do you think I'd break a lot of people's filters if I removed the
prefix? :) Anyone strongly for/against removing it? It seems kind of
annoying to me whenever I happen to think about it.
Doesn't bother me, but I have a feeling that at least some of
On 04/03/2010 15:47, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 10:05 -0500, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2010-03-04 9:32 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
LEMONADE group solved this with IMAP URLAUTH (RFC 4467) and SMTP BURL
(RFC 4468) extensions. The idea is basically (copy&pasting from RFCs):
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 23:43 -0500, Tony Nelson wrote:
> > I think it's a brilliant idea. After one login attempt, all others
> > on the same connection should fail.
>
> A fan! Anyway, there should at least be a choice. Not that I've coded
> a choice, just a dumb patch -- see attachment. It's a
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 09:59 +, Ed W wrote:
> > MUA would have to support both of those URLAUTH and BURL extensions, so
> > that it can register a temporary URL on the IMAP server, then connect to
> > SMTP server and give that URL to BURL command (instead of sending the
> > mail with DATA comman
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 03:57 -0500, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 3/5/2010 1:17 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
> > of the myriad of lists im' on and have been on for many many years,
> > only nanog and bind lists dont use tags.
>
> postfix doesn't, and I know you're on there (you replied to the
> 'copy-to-se
On 2010-03-05 5:28 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 03:57 -0500, Charles Marcus wrote:
>> On 3/5/2010 1:17 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
>>> of the myriad of lists im' on and have been on for many many years,
>>> only nanog and bind lists dont use tags.
>> postfix doesn't, and I know you're
On 2010-03-05 5:10 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> Well, I'm not very happy about the idea of IMAP server sending messages
> to SMTP server either.. :)
Not to belabor the point, but the dovecot LDA is already talking to the
SMTP server in one direction... this is why I proposed something as
simple as p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 06:43:21PM -0500, Tony Nelson wrote:
> On 10-03-04 00:51:40, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
[...fail2ban...]
> I already have something that works with any program secure enough not
> to allow unlimited login attempts. Using fail2b
On 05/03/2010 10:10, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 09:59 +, Ed W wrote:
MUA would have to support both of those URLAUTH and BURL extensions, so
that it can register a temporary URL on the IMAP server, then connect to
SMTP server and give that URL to BURL command (instead of
On 2010-03-05 4:59 AM, Ed W wrote:
> Perhaps a simple case of adding a flag when saving into a folder
> would mark the message as being required to be sent onwards?
Way to error-prone for my taste. What about the luser that accidentally
drops 5000 messages in there ... no thanks... ;)
> The oth
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 05:57 -0500, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 2010-03-05 5:28 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 03:57 -0500, Charles Marcus wrote:
> >> On 3/5/2010 1:17 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
> >>> of the myriad of lists im' on and have been on for many many years,
> >>> only nanog
Frank Elsner put forth on 3/4/2010 3:51 PM:
> Removal gives 10 chars more for the subject. Remove it.
And what ever will people do with those extra 10 characters. I've got 1744
messages in my Dovecot folder and not one has a subject line too long to fit
in my MUA.
I say ban all the people wasti
Ed W put forth on 3/5/2010 3:44 AM:
> ...but ... At least my public facing servers seem to be receiving
> trickle scans where there is definite evidence of a slow distributed
> bruteforcer which uses multiple IPs to try multiple usernames and I
> probably only see each IP a few times a day... Th
Timo Sirainen wrote:
> Do you think I'd break a lot of people's filters if I removed the
> prefix? :) Anyone strongly for/against removing it? It seems kind of
> annoying to me whenever I happen to think about it.
You can filter it out "for yourself", can not you? ;-)
I would suggest to keep it
Dear all.
(I'm new to the list.)
Our regional government is considering, due to our proposal, migrate
from Courier to Dovecot. 70k mailboxes.
One of the most attractive features for them is the usage of indexes,
and especially Solr FTS plugin.
Their question is:
How many users (range of users)
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 06:08 -0500, Charles Marcus wrote:
> Not to belabor the point, but the dovecot LDA is already talking to the
> SMTP server in one direction... this is why I proposed something as
> simple as possible, a 'LSA proxy'... just enough to make sure the
> message is accepted for del
Hi,
This is my first mail, fyi.
I dont know internals of the plugin but it depends more on Solr than Dovecot.
Also the activity level and "real-timeness" of the index is important. Assuming
this as the search only machine and relatively moderate usage, a big box with
lots of RAM and 4-way serve
On 2010-03-05 8:43 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> With v2.0 you can do basically everything as external plugin. Even
> managesieve no longer requires patching Dovecot.
>
> LDA "talks" to SMTP server by calling sendmail binary. That's kind of
> ugly. v2.0 actually has SMTP client support, so maybe I sh
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 14:01 +0800, Patrick Nagel wrote:
> On 2010-03-05 07:49, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > I don't recall any, other than plain refusal to use a dedicated folder,
> > rather than dumping it all into the Inbox...
>
> IMO, Michael M. Slusarz had a valid reason:
Frankly, I disagr
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 09:50 +, Ed W wrote:
> I would suggest it might be an over-bold move given that it changes the
> requirement to understand your filtering LDA from beginner to
> intermediate, [...]
This is an IMAP *server* list. It should be fairly safe to assume mail
admins exceeded th
Quoting Timo Sirainen :
Do you think I'd break a lot of people's filters if I removed the
prefix? :) Anyone strongly for/against removing it? It seems kind of
annoying to me whenever I happen to think about it.
I personally like it, and would miss it, but it wouldn't break anything
for me...
Eric Rostetter wrote:
Quoting Timo Sirainen :
Do you think I'd break a lot of people's filters if I removed the
prefix? :) Anyone strongly for/against removing it? It seems kind of
annoying to me whenever I happen to think about it.
It wouldn't break any of my filters.
Personally, I like it w
Quoting Stan Hoeppner :
It's good policy these days to use ipdeny.com cidr tables and ban all
countries from your servers that will never need legitimate access to them.
It can be good policy... But not always...
And it is certainly not a cure-all. If the people in those countries use
a prox
If prefix is not prefer by some, but many others still want to see the
tag in subject line, what about suffix? Can it be done?
just a thought
Joseph
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:22 PM, James Butler
wrote:
> Eric Rostetter wrote:
>>
>> Quoting Timo Sirainen :
>>
>>> Do you think I'd break a lot of p
Eric Rostetter put forth on 3/5/2010 2:20 PM:
> It can, in some cases, indeed. But not in all cases...
I think I was pretty clear in stating each sysadmin needs to evaluate what
countries do/don't need to access his/her IMAP ports.
> I think you did a great service by pointing this out on the l
Hi,
On Fri, 05.03.2010 at 09:44:35 +, Ed W wrote:
> I would be all in favour of a setting like this because it's easier
> to configure than fail2ban...
I'm no fan of fail2ban which fails to ban several things on my
server(s), and is Linux only, too. You might want to look at 'sec',
which ca
I tried to use MySQL stored procedures from dovecot:
password_query = CALL user_pass_check('%n', '%d', '%w')
user_query = CALL user_info('%n', '%d')
This failed with the message:
User query failed: PROCEDURE imap.user_info can't return a result set
in the given context
I'm trying to configure dovecot on a SUSE system, and having trouble with the
simplest possible authentication scheme: using the standard Linux users and
passwords.
My configuration is:
dovecot -n
# 1.1.7: /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf
# OS: Linux 2.6.27.45-0.1-pae i686 openSUSE 11.1 (i586)
protoc
On 03/06/2010 01:39 AM David Ramsey wrote:
> I'm trying to configure dovecot on a SUSE system, and having trouble with the
> simplest possible authentication scheme: using the standard Linux users and
> passwords.
>
> My configuration is:
>
> dovecot -n
> # 1.1.7: /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf
> #
On Mar 5, 2010, at 6:06 PM, Pascal Volk wrote:
> On 03/06/2010 01:39 AM David Ramsey wrote:
>> I'm trying to configure dovecot on a SUSE system, and having trouble with
>> the simplest possible authentication scheme: using the standard Linux users
>> and passwords.
>>
>> My configuration is:
>
32 matches
Mail list logo
