Hi,
I see the plugin exists for v1 & v2, all very interesting... Surprised no one
seems to have created an RPM and it looks like deleted_to_trash is one of the
very few plugins to not be shipped as part of the default install with CentOS
5.5 or CentOS 6 (i.e. Dovecot v1 & v2 respectively.)
Am
On 24 Jun 2012, at 21:20, Christian Rößner wrote:
>>> I have an interesting problem: I am building dovecot packages for Ubuntu
>>> since 10.04. Never had bigger trouble with it. Now since 2.1.6 or 2.1.7 (I
>>> can not say more precisely), Thunderbird 10ESR and Outlook 2010 can no
>>> longer use
On 25 Jun 2012, at 08:20, Kaya Saman wrote:
> Now what I would like to know is, which is better for "virtual
> hosting" Maildir or mbox?
I always use Maildir in preference to mbox . . it's just such a lovely
solution, imho :)
(Mind you, I'm on a *nix server, so filesystem behaviour may be a cons
On 25 Jun 2012, at 08:52, Kaya Saman wrote:
> I've previously **only** ever worked with Maildir but I was told that there
> are some benefits to mbox which is why I decided to try to use it here!
I used mbox before Dovecot, but once I found Maildir, I never looked back.
I've not come up with an
On 25 Jun 2012, at 10:44, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 2012-06-25 3:58 AM, J E Lyon wrote:
>> I've not come up with any significant advantages of mbox that count
>> for much in my experiences and installations . . Would be interested
>> to hear of suggested advantages th
Hi,
After many hours of searching (!) and lots of testing procmail scripts, I found
the explanation I was looking for -- something you explained at
http://www.dovecot.org/list/dovecot/2008-July/032551.html
That explains it.
Thing is, though, every time I've seen shared mailboxes -- really shar
On 26 Jun 2012, at 21:49, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> So you don't want shared seen flags? You can simply not create dovecot-shared
> file nowadays. It's not necessary. The only other purpose for it was as the
> template for file permissions, but those are nowadays taken from the maildir
> itself: h
Hi,
I see this plugin exists for v1 & v2, all very interesting... Surprised no one
seems to have created an RPM and it looks like deleted_to_trash is one of the
very few plugins to not be shipped as part of the default install with CentOS
5.5 or CentOS 6 (i.e. Dovecot v1 & v2 respectively.)
Am
On 27 Jun 2012, at 19:27, Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2012, at 9:10 AM, J E Lyon wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I see this plugin exists for v1 & v2, all very interesting... Surprised no
>> one seems to have created an RPM and it looks like deleted_to_trash
hanks all,
J.
On 27 Jun 2012, at 11:01, J E Lyon wrote:
> On 26 Jun 2012, at 21:49, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>
>> So you don't want shared seen flags? You can simply not create
>> dovecot-shared file nowadays. It's not necessary. The only other purpose for
>> it wa
On 3 Jul 2012, at 07:46, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On 3.7.2012, at 9.38, Kaya Saman wrote:
>
>> So if I look at a different authentication mechanism say LDAP would it
>> improve performance?
>
> I doubt authentication has anything to do with why Outlook downloads mails
> slowly.
>
> But you could
On 3 Jul 2012, at 08:12, Kaya Saman wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 7:59 AM, J E Lyon
> wrote:
>> On 3 Jul 2012, at 07:46, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>>
>>> On 3.7.2012, at 9.38, Kaya Saman wrote:
>>>
>>>> So if I look at a different authent
On 3 Jul 2012, at 11:51, Kaya Saman wrote:
> Yeah, it seems to be M$ implementation of IMAP. I don't think that
> there's anything anyone can do Outlook seems to wait after each
> transmission (found using Wireshark).
Is the client syncing more than it has to? I mean, putting aside the delay
On 3 Jul 2012, at 12:32, Kaya Saman wrote:
> Ok now probably related to this is that some folders are not able to copy??
>
> While dragging one folder from Outlook PST to the Dovecot IMAP server
> in Outlook 2010, the transfer keeps bombing out?
>
> In the logs all I see are:
>
> : Error: stat(
On 3 Jul 2012, at 13:11, Kaya Saman wrote:
> It is Maildir I am using, checked permissions - they're all ok. Yeah
> would be cur When connecting to this, do I need to put something
> like Inbox or INBOX as the mail root folder?
>
> I remember historically one needed to do that, however, with
On 3 Jul 2012, at 13:20, Kaya Saman wrote:
> [...]
>>
>>
>> That's not something as simple as permissions on the server end, is it?
>
>
> I have my Maildir and parent folder permissions setup as:
>
> rwx-- mail_user:mail_user
I don't know what is strictly necessary, but I actually use rwxr
On 4 Jul 2012, at 21:01, Adrian Minta wrote:
> What is the best strategy to add another storage to an existing virtual mail
> system ?
> Move some domains to the new storage and create symlinks ?
> Switch to dovecot hashing ? But in this case what is the easy-east way to
> migrate ?
>
> Thanks
On 4 Jul 2012, at 22:09, Adrian Minta wrote:
> On 07/04/12 23:22, J E Lyon wrote:
>> On 4 Jul 2012, at 21:01, Adrian Minta wrote:
>>
>>> What is the best strategy to add another storage to an existing virtual
>>> mail system ?
>>> Move some doma
On 5 Jul 2012, at 08:44, Adrian M wrote:
> Hi Stan,
> I know how to add drives to the storage and how to grow the existing
> filesystem, but such big filesystems are somehow new to mainstream
> linux. Yes, I know some university out there already have pentabytes
> filesystems, but right now stable
On 5 Jul 2012, at 10:45, Kaya Saman wrote:
> But then one must think, do I really want to switch OS?
I heard a rumour that switching OS is sometimes harder than adding a mountpoint
:)
J.
On 5 Jul 2012, at 10:55, Kaya Saman wrote:
> That's why I'm not even thinking of migrating the mission critical
> stuff running on CentOS 5 to even CentOS 6 yet.
I'm in an identical position there -- and in fact, I think it's time to get
some virtualised hosting of CentOS 6 servers, once I decid
On 7 Jul 2012, at 07:37, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> 99% of block latency is rotational.
So true... I spend my entire life trying to convince customers to add heaps and
heaps of RAM to *nix servers to make them faster and not be swayed by talk of
faster CPUs . . Sheeesh! . . Come to think of it, I'
On 8 Jul 2012, at 08:00, Joseph Tam wrote:
> Timo Sirainen writes:
>
>>> #0 i_panic (format=0xff2302f8 "Trying to allocate %u bytes") at
>>> failures.c:259
>>
>> Fixed: http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.1/rev/ea18b2ddb67b
>>
>> Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2012 05:52:03 +0300
>
> 2 hours after I repo
On 8 Jul 2012, at 08:36, Steve Litt wrote:
>> Can one even argue on one side or the other without knowing the speed
>> of the network, and how much contention is on that network?
>>
>> My experience is that with a 100Mbs network, local is faster, although
>> I've never had a SAN, so to speak, on
On 9 Jul 2012, at 10:41, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> Many people just want to be proud, or want to make things expensive so their
> clients are proud. but not always it's like that.
You go on a bit about "pride in complexity" . . What you fail to understand is
that many highly intelligent, experie
On 20 Jul 2012, at 09:05, Tom Hendrikx wrote:
> On 7/20/12 9:56 AM, Frank Bonnet wrote:
>> On 07/20/2012 09:48 AM, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
do you really think that he migrates to exchange
because he have fun with it?
>>> so? is it my problem that he works in company managed by an idiot?
>
On 24 Jul 2012, at 15:51, Steve Platt wrote:
> We have a user who wants to use Outlook with our Dovecot IMAP server but
> doesn't like the way Outlook handles deletion with IMAP.
>
> Ironically she would like Outlook to move the message to her Trash folder,
> just like Outlook does with "local"
27 matches
Mail list logo
