Re: [CentOS-docs] http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/postfix
Am 20.07.2012 01:25, schrieb Edward Cavill:
Hi in the wiki, using 64 without the trailing M gives an error.
code
The dovecot configuration file is located at /etc/dovecot.conf. The
following lines should be added, edited or uncommented:
login_process_size = 64
[root@localhost etc]# /etc/init.d/dovecot start
Starting Dovecot Imap: doveconf: Warning: NOTE: You can get a new clean
config file with: doveconf -n dovecot-new.conf
doveconf: Warning: Obsolete setting in /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf:21:
protocols=imaps is no longer necessary, remove it
doveconf: Warning: Obsolete setting in /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf:21:
protocols=pop3s is no longer necessary, remove it
doveconf: Warning: Obsolete setting in /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf:86:
login_process_size has been replaced by service { vsz_limit }
doveconf: Fatal: Error in configuration file /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf:
service(pop3-login): vsz_limit is too low
/code
Adding the M after the login_process_size = resolves the issue, as can
be seen below
login_process_size = 64M
[root@localhost etc]# /etc/init.d/dovecot start
Starting Dovecot Imap: doveconf: Warning: NOTE: You can get a new clean
config file with: doveconf -n dovecot-new.conf
doveconf: Warning: Obsolete setting in /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf:21:
protocols=imaps is no longer necessary, remove it
doveconf: Warning: Obsolete setting in /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf:21:
protocols=pop3s is no longer necessary, remove it
doveconf: Warning: Obsolete setting in /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf:86:
login_process_size has been replaced by service { vsz_limit }
[ OK ]
Please could you update the wiki to show these changes.
the two occurrences are at
1) login_process_size = 64
2) the Dovecot package on x86_64 kernels requires the parameter
login_process_size = 64
[root@localhost etc]# uname -ams
Linux xx 2.6.32-220.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Dec 6 19:48:22 GMT
2011 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
Thanks
Hi,
I'Ve added the changes - thanks for finding them.
cheers
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Access request to page TipsAndTricks/ApacheVhostDir
On Thu, 2012-07-12 at 13:07 -0600, Ed Heron wrote:
On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 19:40 -0400, Brian Mathis wrote:
The use of mv -v ...{,_} is too clever for this kind of educational
document, and should be changed to spell out the full mv command. I
get what you're doing there, but the purpose of the document is not to
teach clever uses of bash, it's to make it obvious to people that
you're renaming the file. It will trip up the flow of reading for all
but the most knowledgeable users, and users who don't understand it
will be totally lost.
I'm not trying to be clever, I just don't like to type it twice if I
can avoid it and the typing the higher the chance for a typo. I don't
have a problem having both forms. I'll add it and see what you think.
In most documents and scripts, I usually spell out the short form
options as well, such as using --verbose. Short forms save you
typing, but documentation should not trip people up if they don't know
what the option means.
Normally, I expect, if people don't understand a command, they will
refer to the man page for the command. However, to my constant
disappointment, I understand that many people aren't looking for long
term knowledge improvement, they are looking for a recipe to blindly
follow.
Also, I find the use of _ to be obtuse and highly error prone if one
were to actually run a server that way. It's far more obvious to use
disabled, which makes it very clear that those items are disabled.
It may work for you but only because that's a convention you came up
with so you're used to it, but we're not in dos 8.3 days with
filenames, so why not be more descriptive?
Having both forms should make it plain that people can use any
convention they wish. System administration is not a fixed target.
Like many things, there are many ways to accomplish the same result.
When approaching a system that someone else is administrating, we should
try to maintain the existing conventions instead of forcing our own
ideas onto a server for which we are not the primary responsible party.
In section 6.4, is there a reason not to make a vhosts.conf file
that contains the Include in the in the conf.d/ directory, instead
of appending to the httpd.conf, or do you run into ordering issues
there? I try to avoid changing the distro files if possible.
Sections 6 and 7 are optional. There are certainly arguments against
customization. In the past, upgrades might have replaced all files
including configuration files. In that case, creating a vhosts.conf
file in the conf.d directory to separate the directive would have been a
must. However, the Linux distributions I have used for the past decade
or so have avoided replacing existing configuration files, expecting
they might be customized.
That said, I like the suggestion. It would allow for the virtual host
files to be packaged into an RPM file that could be installed on
multiple web hosts.
❧ Brian Mathis
I made the changes I've described about a week ago. Brian, does that
satisfy your concerns? Does anybody else agree with Brian? Have the
changes I've made make it easier to read the document?
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
[CentOS-docs] Ralph
Am 20.07.2012 14:45, schrieb Edward Cavill: Hey Christoph, It was my pleasure, thank you for making it in the first place! Cheers, Eddie Thanks but this credit is more due to NedSlider, RalphAngenendt, AkemiYagi and AthmaneMadjoudj - I just did the last modification :) http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/postfix?action=info If possible, could you please post future suggestions for corrections to the centos-docs mailing list? Just so feedback on/improvements for the wiki don't get lost in the inbox of one person :) http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs thanks again and cheers Christoph ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
[CentOS-docs] Ralph - should be Re: http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/postfix
sorry for the topic on the previous post ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/postfix
On 20/07/12 12:00, Christoph Galuschka wrote:
Am 20.07.2012 01:25, schrieb Edward Cavill:
Hi in the wiki, using 64 without the trailing M gives an error.
code
The dovecot configuration file is located at /etc/dovecot.conf. The
following lines should be added, edited or uncommented:
login_process_size = 64
[root@localhost etc]# /etc/init.d/dovecot start
Starting Dovecot Imap: doveconf: Warning: NOTE: You can get a new clean
config file with: doveconf -n dovecot-new.conf
doveconf: Warning: Obsolete setting in /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf:21:
protocols=imaps is no longer necessary, remove it
doveconf: Warning: Obsolete setting in /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf:21:
protocols=pop3s is no longer necessary, remove it
doveconf: Warning: Obsolete setting in /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf:86:
login_process_size has been replaced by service { vsz_limit }
doveconf: Fatal: Error in configuration file /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf:
service(pop3-login): vsz_limit is too low
/code
Adding the M after the login_process_size = resolves the issue, as can
be seen below
login_process_size = 64M
[root@localhost etc]# /etc/init.d/dovecot start
Starting Dovecot Imap: doveconf: Warning: NOTE: You can get a new clean
config file with: doveconf -n dovecot-new.conf
doveconf: Warning: Obsolete setting in /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf:21:
protocols=imaps is no longer necessary, remove it
doveconf: Warning: Obsolete setting in /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf:21:
protocols=pop3s is no longer necessary, remove it
doveconf: Warning: Obsolete setting in /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf:86:
login_process_size has been replaced by service { vsz_limit }
[ OK ]
Please could you update the wiki to show these changes.
the two occurrences are at
1) login_process_size = 64
2) the Dovecot package on x86_64 kernels requires the parameter
login_process_size = 64
[root@localhost etc]# uname -ams
Linux xx 2.6.32-220.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Dec 6 19:48:22 GMT
2011 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
Thanks
Hi,
I'Ve added the changes - thanks for finding them.
cheers
One issue I see here is that the original howto was written for CentOS-5
with dovecot 1.x.
The OP here is clearly using CentOS-6, which uses dovecot 2.x and no
surprises for guessing that there are a few incompatibilities between
the config files for dovecot 1 and 2.
Personally, I'd suggest forking the original article and maintaining
separate versions for CentOS-5 and CentOS-6, or have separate sections
within the article for CentOS-5 and CentOS-6 where they differ.
To the best of my knowledge this list never did agree a mechanism for
handling documentation differences between product versions. The danger
is that if we keep editing changes for CentOS-6 into docs for CentOS-5
we will end up with broken useless docs.
How do others feel this type of situation should best be handled?
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/postfix
Ned Slider wrote on 07/20/2012 03:12 PM: One issue I see here is that the original howto was written for CentOS-5 with dovecot 1.x. The OP here is clearly using CentOS-6, which uses dovecot 2.x and no surprises for guessing that there are a few incompatibilities between the config files for dovecot 1 and 2. Personally, I'd suggest forking the original article and maintaining separate versions for CentOS-5 and CentOS-6, or have separate sections within the article for CentOS-5 and CentOS-6 where they differ. To the best of my knowledge this list never did agree a mechanism for handling documentation differences between product versions. The danger is that if we keep editing changes for CentOS-6 into docs for CentOS-5 we will end up with broken useless docs. How do others feel this type of situation should best be handled? I'd say it should be decided on a case-by-case basis, but perhaps some general guidelines would be helpful. If differences can be easily handled by a note here and there then a separate page is probably not justified. If differences are substantial between major releases, then a fork of a new page for the later release may be the best approach. Phil ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
