Re: [Dovecot] Copyright notices in code
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 05:14:39PM +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote: I thought about committing this change to all .c files: Removed all Copyright Timo Sirainen comments. They weren't always correct and the year numbers were rarely updated when something was changed. Copyright is owned by the creator by default in practically all countries, there's no need to advertise it everywhere. Can anyone think of reasons why this wouldn't be a good idea? The FSF highly recommends putting the whole lot of it in each file. It doesn't hurt and is the safest bet. There are templates to use, that look like what this code does (one line) copyright/dates/author (one to few lines) license text (three paragraphs) -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net pgpxho9OhNSfo.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Dovecot] mbox vs maildir
* Charles Marcus [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Please, lets not start that war up again! ;) Reiser has worked fine for me for many years, but I think the next time I rebuild my servers I'll be using ext3, in anticipation of ext4 (since it should be a fairly seamless switch)... I did the ext3 - ext4 switch on two of our proxyservers a few months ago. Then we forgot (!) about that test and the boxes just kept running and running and running ... -- Ralf Hildebrandt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Postfix - Einrichtung, Betrieb und Wartung Tel. +49 (0)30-450 570-155 http://www.arschkrebs.de A bus station is where buses stop. A train station is where trains stop. On my desk, there is a workstation...
Re: [Dovecot] mbox vs maildir
On Sat, 2007-06-30 at 13:01 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote: One advantage of cydir over dbox was mentioned by Mark above re incremental backups - with dbox, you'd still have to backup the entire mailbox file, while with cydir, you'd only have to copy newer messages. I was thinking about making dbox configurable. If it is run in one-mail-per-file mode there's no need for locking either. Ahhh... ! Ok, that would be 'a good thing'... :) Curious, though - why *not* make cydir a real usable format, if its performance is so good? What if dbox's performance will be even better? We'll see. Is it only/because there is no good solution to the extra risk of data loss if indexes get lost/corrupted? That, and dbox will have some other features such as single instance attachment storage, which can't be implemented to cydir without making the format more complex (and then it's practically the same as dbox). signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [Dovecot] mbox vs maildir
Curious, though - why *not* make cydir a real usable format, if its performance is so good? What if dbox's performance will be even better? We'll see. Heh... don't know why I even bothered asking - you are always about 357 steps ahead of me... ;) Is it only/because there is no good solution to the extra risk of data loss if indexes get lost/corrupted? That, and dbox will have some other features such as single instance attachment storage, which can't be implemented to cydir without making the format more complex (and then it's practically the same as dbox). Bingo - dbox wins... :) Thanks for all you do Timo... -- Best regards, Charles
[Dovecot] v1.1 max connections per user
v1.1 has now:
# Maximum number of connections allowed for a user. The limits are enforced
# separately for IMAP and POP3 connections, so you can move this setting
# inside protocol {} to have separate settings for them. NOTE: The user names
# are compared case-sensitively, so make sure your userdb returns usernames
# always using the same casing so users can't bypass this limit!
#mail_max_user_connections = 10
Is 10 a good default?
Currently new connections just fail authentication with a Maximum
number of connections exceeded error message. v2.0 hopefully will
instead disconnect the oldest idling connection with IMAP.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [Dovecot] v1.1 max connections per user
On Sat, 2007-06-30 at 19:11 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
Timo Sirainen, on 6/30/2007 6:43 PM, said the following:
v1.1 has now:
# Maximum number of connections allowed for a user. The limits are enforced
# separately for IMAP and POP3 connections, so you can move this setting
# inside protocol {} to have separate settings for them. NOTE: The user
names
# are compared case-sensitively, so make sure your userdb returns usernames
# always using the same casing so users can't bypass this limit!
#mail_max_user_connections = 10
Is 10 a good default?
I'm assuming this is per IP?
No. I'm not sure if it should. Perhaps. It's mostly intended to prevent
unintentional abuse by stupid clients, so having 3+ thunderbirds open in
different locations with each having 5 connections should probably be
allowed.
In Courier, there were two settings:
MAXDAEMONS = 40
(total number of IMAP connections the server would accept)
Dovecot has max_mail_processes defaulting to 1024.
I think it would be a good thing to have both, *and* to allow for
setting the MAXPERIP on both a per user and global basis (if a per user
value is not provided it uses the global default).
Later, adding the ability to set them both on a per domain basis, and
the MAXPERIP on a per domain/user basis would be even better...
All of these seem to be for handling intentional abuse. v2.0 maybe.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [Dovecot] v1.1 max connections per user
Timo Sirainen, on 6/30/2007 7:25 PM, said the following:
On Sat, 2007-06-30 at 19:11 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
Timo Sirainen, on 6/30/2007 6:43 PM, said the following:
v1.1 has now:
# Maximum number of connections allowed for a user. The limits are enforced
# separately for IMAP and POP3 connections, so you can move this setting
# inside protocol {} to have separate settings for them. NOTE: The user names
# are compared case-sensitively, so make sure your userdb returns usernames
# always using the same casing so users can't bypass this limit!
#mail_max_user_connections = 10
Is 10 a good default?
I'm assuming this is per IP?
No. I'm not sure if it should. Perhaps. It's mostly intended to prevent
unintentional abuse by stupid clients, so having 3+ thunderbirds open in
different locations with each having 5 connections should probably be
allowed.
Ok - you said 10 was the default - but then said that 15 (3 TBirds x 5)
connections should be allowed, which is more than 10... so... you just
meant that one could accommodate that by upping this limit to 15?
In Courier, there were two settings:
MAXDAEMONS = 40
(total number of IMAP connections the server would accept)
Dovecot has max_mail_processes defaulting to 1024.
Ahhh... ok - but is that configurable? For smaller shops, I'd definitely
want to be able to set it to a much lower value (one of my courier
clients that I'm still trying to convince to upgrade to dovecot - I have
more than a few of those it seems, including my primary client that I'm
writing this from - I have MAXDAEMONS set to 75).
I think it would be a good thing to have both, *and* to allow for
setting the MAXPERIP on both a per user and global basis (if a per user
value is not provided it uses the global default).
Later, adding the ability to set them both on a per domain basis, and
the MAXPERIP on a per domain/user basis would be even better...
All of these seem to be for handling intentional abuse. v2.0 maybe.
Definitely for handling abuse, but sometimes said abuse could be
unintentional... ;)
This definitely falls into the 'it would be nice' category, so v2.0+
target is fine by me...
--
Best regards,
Charles
Re: [Dovecot] v1.1 max connections per user
On Sat, June 30, 2007 7:50 pm, Charles Marcus said:
Timo Sirainen, on 6/30/2007 7:25 PM, said the following:
On Sat, 2007-06-30 at 19:11 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
Timo Sirainen, on 6/30/2007 6:43 PM, said the following:
v1.1 has now:
# Maximum number of connections allowed for a user. The limits are enforced
# separately for IMAP and POP3 connections, so you can move this setting
# inside protocol {} to have separate settings for them. NOTE: The user
names
# are compared case-sensitively, so make sure your userdb returns usernames
# always using the same casing so users can't bypass this limit!
#mail_max_user_connections = 10
Is 10 a good default?
I'm assuming this is per IP?
No. I'm not sure if it should. Perhaps. It's mostly intended to prevent
unintentional abuse by stupid clients, so having 3+ thunderbirds open in
different locations with each having 5 connections should probably be
allowed.
Ok - you said 10 was the default - but then said that 15 (3 TBirds x 5)
connections should be allowed, which is more than 10... so... you just
meant that one could accommodate that by upping this limit to 15?
I like 15. That way it is high and isn't as likely to affect existing
installations unless they manually set it to something lower. Or if you want
to have a separate default for POP vs IMAP, I'd use 5 for POP and 15 for IMAP.
