On Tue, 3 Aug 2004, Gil Freund wrote:
Can sieve scripts be set for Public (shared) folders? If so, where would one
store them?
Not yet. One of the upcoming projects we will be undertaking is
per-public (non-user) folder sieve scripts.
---
Cyrus Home Page: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus
Cyrus Wiki/
* Nikos Voutsinas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040619 06:34]:
>
> Also I suppose that a lot of people would like an extended autocreate
> Inbox patch with an "autocreatesievescript" option.
>
Coming in a little late here. Has anyone tried to extend the autocreate
patch with this "autocreatesievescript"
Can sieve scripts be set for Public (shared) folders? If so, where would
one store them?
Thanks
--
Gil Freund Systems Analyst
Sysnet consulting POB 396 Rehovot 76103 Israel
em
> Here are the bonnie results...
Hm, this is bonnie 1.x, which is okay, but it has 2Gb filesize limit. Your
big box has 2Gb of Ram, right? How big was your file size with bonnie? To
make this test work, boot both boxes with mem=128M as kernel parameter so
it will only use 128M of the memory. Then,
On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 19:55, Cristian Thiago Moecke wrote:
> Hello all!!!
> I have an email server with FreeBSD 4.4 using Cyrus 1.6.24. Another
> person instaled it a logn time ago, many administrators used it and
> never changed it and now i am the administrator of this server. I realy
I sent this yesterday but I think I forgot some important information.
I have been working getting cyrus 2.2.8 running for the past two days but I am having
some serious issues. When my email client prompts me for the password I get the
following error: 'Sending password did not succeed. Mail s
Hello all!!!
I have an email server with FreeBSD 4.4 using Cyrus 1.6.24. Another
person instaled it a logn time ago, many administrators used it and
never changed it and now i am the administrator of this server. I realy
think I NEED to upgrade the FreeBSD, and i would like to upgrade the
Here are the bonnie results...
This is the "beefy" machine
---Sequential Output ---Sequential Input--
--Random--
-Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block---
--Seeks---
MachineMB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU /sec
%CPU
I'm currently running 3 frontends, 2 backends and 1 mupdate server that are all
using cyrus version 2.2.3. I'd like to upgrade these boxes to version 2.2.8 but
was wondering if there's any known issues with just upgrading via rpm -Uhv with
Simon's newest rpm's?
Would there be any issues if, say, t
This is what originally occurred to me, but consider the case of a
single domain server which then upgrades to virtdomains. Any mailbox
which uses anyone/anonymous in an ACL is now open to anyone/anonymous in
ANY domain on the server. I don't think we can assume that this is what
the admin in
PREMATURE
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ?
Stop Premature [EMAIL PROTECTED]
0RDER N0W
ST0CKS ARE L1M1TED!
100% satisfaction guaranteed or your money back!
R*E*L*E*A*S*E
delphic carbonaceouscoralline bordeaux glossedbootlegging
leucine jeffreypractice blurb downtroddenoperate
diverse conjointamputate
Rob Mueller wrote:
You can't. There isn't any support for cross-domain ACLs. The biggest
impediment to adding this is how to handle 'anyone' and 'anonymous'.
Are these pseudo users inter-domain or intra-domain only?
As a suggestion, you could use "anyone/anonymous" for inter-domains, and
"[EM
Hi,
I'm using exim / cyrus as out mail setup.
There are strange messages in the exim mail log:
R=localuser T=local_delivery defer (-1): Malformed LMTP response after
end of data: :\365\034Z\026a\252\324
here are the relevant parts of the configuration:
* cyrus.conf
SERVICES {
imap
Hi,
RE: forget the banner...
I am currently in the process of migrating approx. 100 GByte of mail from UW IMAP to
Cyrus IMAP.
Using the filesystem copy and "reconstruct -r" approach
mentioned on the Wiki, I have encountered some strange behavior.
When I use imtest(1) to connect to some user ma
Hi,
I am currently in the process of migrating approx. 100 GByte of mail from UW IMAP to
Cyrus IMAP.
Using the filesystem copy and "reconstruct -r" approach
mentioned on the Wiki, I have encountered some strange behavior.
When I use imtest(1) to connect to some user mailbox as admin user cyrus
> Today, we upgraded the machine to the latest redhat ES 3.0
> with kernel Linux 2.4.21-15.ELsmp -- no luck... imtest -z still took 19
> seconds to run... compared to 2-3 seconds on the cheapie machine.
Hm, you said SCSI Raid - that can mean alot.
Could you run a good old bonnie on both boxes and
16 matches
Mail list logo
