Re: v2.2.32 release candidate 2 released

[Aki Tuomi]

On 23.08.2017 03:17, Marcus Rueckert wrote:
> On 2017-08-22 21:50:52 +0200, Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz wrote:
>>> A couple of changes since rc1:
>>>
>>>  + Added apparmor plugin. See https://wiki2.dovecot.org/Plugins/Apparmor
>> Oh so no way to set separate hat for each user? (based on sql query for 
>> example etc)
> have your userdb query return an apparmor_hat column.
> I think dict lookups can be used as well?
>
> HTH
>
> darix
>

Hi!

I've updated the wiki documentation to reflect various configuration modes.

Aki

Re: pop 110/995, imap 143/993 ?

[Peter]

On 23/08/17 11:13, Joseph Tam wrote:
> You don't need plaintext to use CRAM-MD5: there's no problem have *both*
> CRAM-MD5 and SSL (it's overkill, but works).  And mail data is worth
> protecting too.

The problem is, as I already pointed out, that using CRAM-MD5 or any
other form of challenge-response password mechanism requires that the
password be stored on the server in plain text.  Furthermore just the
advertisement of CRAM-MD5 in a response advertises to an attacker that
you do indeed store the passwords as plain text.  I would much rather
store the password as a hash on the server and only offer up the PLAIN
and LOGIN types on an encrypted connection.

> No argument here about using end-to-end encryption, but protecting mail
> data and metadata is important too.  Don't forget also, it's not just
> about the privacy (reading) of mail data, but it's also important to
> guarantee the authenticity of mail data from tampering.

Right, the most common means of doing that is to properly authenticate
to the submission server and check TLS validity, then the submission
server DKIM signs the message.  Of course, this implies trust of the
submission server.

> By the way, if we assume a hostile network where MITM is possible, then
> even closing STARTTLS ports will not guarantee confidential transport:
> the MITM attacker can merely open up a fake plaintext-only service port,
> then proxy that to the target server.  The client must deny non-secured
> transport to be fully protected.

Yes, exactly!  If the client accepts a non-secure connection then it
doesn't matter what the server does.  It's the client that must be
vigilant here.

That said, a client that is configured to port 465 would require a
config change in order to accept a plaintext connection, but then so
would a client that is configured to port 587 and mandatory encryption.


Peter

Re: v2.2.32 release candidate 2 released

[Marcus Rueckert]

On 2017-08-22 21:50:52 +0200, Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz wrote:
> > A couple of changes since rc1:
> > 
> >  + Added apparmor plugin. See https://wiki2.dovecot.org/Plugins/Apparmor
> 
> Oh so no way to set separate hat for each user? (based on sql query for 
> example etc)

have your userdb query return an apparmor_hat column.
I think dict lookups can be used as well?

HTH

darix

-- 
   openSUSE - SUSE Linux is my linux
   openSUSE is good for you
   www.opensuse.org

Re: pop 110/995, imap 143/993 ?

[Joseph Tam]

Robert Wolf wrote:


else (NOT LOCALHOST) and you can see it says LOGINDISABLED unless you
have enabled something like cram-md5.


Hi,

exactly, this is the reason, why plain-text is still needed. You don't need
encryption for authentication, if you have secure authentication. Without
knowing original password, the MITM cannot generate correct hash for login, so
the connection can be plain-text.


You don't need plaintext to use CRAM-MD5: there's no problem have *both*
CRAM-MD5 and SSL (it's overkill, but works).  And mail data is worth
protecting too.


Of cource, if you then download your emails, the MITM can still read these
emails too, if these emails are plain-text (not encrypted using e.g. SMIME or
GPG). But he cannot misuse your login.


No argument here about using end-to-end encryption, but protecting mail
data and metadata is important too.  Don't forget also, it's not just
about the privacy (reading) of mail data, but it's also important to
guarantee the authenticity of mail data from tampering.

By the way, if we assume a hostile network where MITM is possible, then
even closing STARTTLS ports will not guarantee confidential transport:
the MITM attacker can merely open up a fake plaintext-only service port,
then proxy that to the target server.  The client must deny non-secured
transport to be fully protected.

Joseph Tam 

Re: user data transfer when migrating to new server

[Cedric M]

Hi,

I did with imapsync for one server but I had all the login / passwords.
The following I did with rsync transfer from one server to another, but the
mails where stored in files. Can't tell if you use any other method of mail
storage.

And if someone knows a trick about not redownloading the emails I'd
also like to know.

Cheers,
Cedric

2017-08-22 16:57 GMT-04:00 :

> I;m setting up new server, what are the options for transferring user's
> mail ?
>
> I've tried imapsync, that seems to work well, but, what options do I have
> for doing accounts or domains where I don't know user's password ?
>
> last time I've done, some users had lengthy period of re downloading 'old'
> mails from new server, is there a way to overcome this ?
>
> thanks, V
>

user data transfer when migrating to new server

[voytek]

I;m setting up new server, what are the options for transferring user's
mail ?

I've tried imapsync, that seems to work well, but, what options do I have
for doing accounts or domains where I don't know user's password ?

last time I've done, some users had lengthy period of re downloading 'old'
mails from new server, is there a way to overcome this ?

thanks, V

Re: pop 110/995, imap 143/993 ?

[Peter]

On 22/08/17 20:07, Robert Wolf wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017, Aki Tuomi wrote:
> 
>> else (NOT LOCALHOST) and you can see it says LOGINDISABLED unless you
>> have enabled something like cram-md5.
> 
> exactly, this is the reason, why plain-text is still needed. You don't need 
> encryption for authentication, if you have secure authentication. Without 
> knowing original password, the MITM cannot generate correct hash for login, 
> so 
> the connection can be plain-text.

In order to support non plain-text login types the passwords themselves
have to be stored in plain-text.  If you use PLAIN but only allow
authentication over a secure channel then you get the best of both
worlds, you can store your passwords as a hash and they are not
transmitted as plain text over the internet.


Peter

Re: pop 110/995, imap 143/993 ?

[Peter]

On 22/08/17 18:24, Aki Tuomi wrote:
> Dovecot, by default, requires STARTTLS before accepting plaintext
> authentication when SSL is configured and you are not connecting from
> localhost. You can verify this by telnetting to port 143 from somewhere
> else (NOT LOCALHOST) and you can see it says LOGINDISABLED unless you
> have enabled something like cram-md5.
> 
> I think postfix, by default, will also prevent authentication without
> transport security.

No:
$ postconf -d smtpd_tls_auth_only
smtpd_tls_auth_only = no

The commented submission service in master.cf contains it, though, so if
you uncomment the service as a whole it will be set:
#  -o smtpd_tls_auth_only=yes

> Also, you should probably using 587/tcp (submission) for sending mail,
> instead of 25. Some reputable ISPs prevent connecting to random MX
> servers to port 25 to make life harder for spambots.

Right, you should never use port 25 for submission, for several reasons.


Peter

Re: v2.2.32 release candidate 2 released

[Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz]

On Tuesday 22 of August 2017, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> https://dovecot.org/releases/2.2/rc/dovecot-2.2.32.rc2.tar.gz
> https://dovecot.org/releases/2.2/rc/dovecot-2.2.32.rc2.tar.gz.sig
> 
> A couple of changes since rc1:
> 
>  + Added apparmor plugin. See https://wiki2.dovecot.org/Plugins/Apparmor

Oh so no way to set separate hat for each user? (based on sql query for 
example etc)

-- 
Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz, arekm / ( maven.pl | pld-linux.org )

unexpected delivery location

[lists]

Hi,

We're running dovecot 2.2.13, virtual users, with postfix. We have an 
olddomain and a new domainname. To 'translate' *@olddomain into 
*@newdomain, I have configured:



cat /etc/postfix/canonical
@olddomain.com   @newdomain.com


While this seems to work, lately we have noticed that dovecot 
occasionally creates mailboxes for non-existent users, like:

/var/vmail/...username
/var/vmail/20username


This only seems to be happening for mails sent to *olddomain*

Looking at the source of these mails, they are indeed sent to 
20usern...@olddomain.com and ...usern...@olddomain.com


Mail headers sample:

Delivered-To: 20usern...@newdomain.com
Received: from server1.newdomain.com (server2.newdomain.com [x.y.z.q])
by server3.newdomain.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 067B4812CF29E
for <20usern...@olddomain.com>; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 19:05:02 +0200 (CEST)


Why doesn't the emailadress 20usern...@newdomain.com in the above 
generate an error, but instead are delivered to a newly created mailbox?


My feeling is that something is wrong with the way I created the alias 
for olddomain -> newdomain with the canonical-file . Does that make sense?


Our goal is to accept *@olddomain.com like it was sent to 
*@newdomain.com, including delivery failures for nonexistent mailboxes 
like 20username


We configured postfix like:

canonical_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/canonical
virtual_alias_maps = ldap:/etc/postfix/ad-mailboxes.cf, 
ldap:/etc/postfix/ad-groups.cf
virtual_uid_maps = static:5000
virtual_gid_maps = static:5000
virtual_transport = dovecot


Verified that this config works for newdomain, using:

root@mail:/etc/postfix# postmap -q al...@newdomain.com  
ldap:/etc/postfix/ad-mailboxes.cf
use...@newdomain.com
root@mail:/etc/postfix# postmap -q al...@olddomain.com  
ldap:/etc/postfix/ad-mailboxes.cf
root@mail:/etc/postfix# 

olddomain gives no result.

Then, from master.cf:

dovecot unix - n n - - pipe
  flags=DRhu user=vmail:vmail argv=/usr/lib/dovecot/dovecot-lda -f ${sender} -a 
${recipient} -d ${user}@${nexthop}


Finally, the mail location as defined in dovecot:


mail_location = maildir:/var/vmail/%Ln/Maildir:LAYOUT=fs:DIRNAME=mAildir


So, can anyone explain why for mails to olddomain, dovecot creates new 
mailboxes, instead of simply generating an error?

Error: mdbox .../storage: Duplicate GUID

[Dennis Schridde]

Hi!

When I force-resync a mailbox of mine, I see following output:

# doveadm force-resync -u $USER $PATH
doveadm($USER): Warning: mdbox .../storage: Inconsistency in map index ($X,$Y2 
!= $X,$Y2)
doveadm($USER): Warning: fscking index file .../storage/dovecot.map.index
doveadm($USER): Warning: mdbox .../storage: rebuilding indexes
doveadm($USER): Error: mdbox .../storage: Duplicate GUID $G in m.$N1:$N2 
(size=$N3) and m.$N1:$N2 (size=$N3)
doveadm($USER): Warning: fscking index file .../storage/dovecot.map.index
doveadm($USER): Warning: mdbox .../storage: Inconsistency in map index ($X,$Y1 
!= $X,$Y3)
doveadm($USER): Warning: fscking index file .../storage/dovecot.map.index
doveadm($USER): Warning: fscking index file .../storage/dovecot.map.index

Different numbers are represented by different $variables, e.g. $N3 != $M3 and 
$Y2 != $Y3.

How can I fix this?  Since the two messages are not the same (they have 
different sizes), I would expect a cleanup operation to give each message a 
unique GUID and write both GUIDs into all places where the old GUID was 
referenced.

I am using Dovecot 2.2.31.  Please CC me, since I am not on the list.

Best regards,
Dennis

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: store into mailbox 'Junk' aborted

[Steffen Kaiser]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 22 Aug 2017, kenneth topp wrote:


Aug 21 19:43:59 lmtp(toppk): Debug: $MAILDIR/Junk: Mailbox opened
because:
lib-lda delivery



sieve: info: started log at Aug 21 19:43:59.
error: msgid=: failed to store into
mailbox '$MAILDIR/Junk': Mailbox doesn't exist: $MAILDIR/Junk.



What is $MAILDIR and where do you use it?



$MAILDIR is /home/toppk/mail (for clarity, it was printing $MAILDIR)



Another thing I need to be clear on.  This sieve moves are working 99% of
the time, just once in a while it fails.


Are you sure?


if header :matches "Subject" "*junktest*" {
   fileinto "Junk";


^^ No $MAILDIR

}

#if header :matches "Subject" ["*money*","*Viagra*","Cialis"] {
#fileinto "Junk";


^^ Neither


#}

if header :contains "X-Spam-Flag" "YES" {
   fileinto "Junk";


^^ No $MAILDIR


}


if header :comparator "i;octet" :contains "X-Spam-Flag" "YES" {
   fileinto "$MAILDIR/Junk";


^^ Why here?? copy the fileinto of the other rules.


}


- -- 
Steffen Kaiser

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEVAwUBWZwzgXz1H7kL/d9rAQK5TQgAkT7OcnKJv6b8BtF1OcuV8HHDjXX8Vh9a
WUJud3cC2gR2jewmTzQn+RuOLuHQp5+NQO7jFunTdK63Kls6l3bT8QkyYmv/DleG
9kFIZ4PEzS5wqfvE2GPIaVqwu6GwCxpFCc65GTqQ6GzNzl53zAdHRkbyJkK0SPOa
bAKv8RFWF0PQd9e5ZvQquj/keOlayl/fH8lcNMY/PcdF0ilQJRyKkuFd25XJ5k4U
LvJjq8vGQBGQkrM76TRBmU5nWk4NxFY9un5v41TVU9Rp2YIMadvoUJrcELOQG90D
mgIK9KxOgeDQirL7ESGIKFeGDBoTQQudWE60Vv+euTohPeCLUHZ8UQ==
=YUpK
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: LMTP and Postfix

[kenneth topp]

> I am setting up a new system that will be using Dovecot with Postifx. I am
> planning on using LMTP. I read the wiki and and found the
> settings I need to make in Dovecot and the Postfix main.cf file. However,
> I
> saw nothing about the Postfix master.cf file. Do I need to make and
> changes to
> it also?
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> Jerry
>


There are several ways of telling postfix to use lmtp to deliver to dovecot.
 I went with a method that was setting just the *_transport variable in
main.cf to a unix pipe, so I didn't need to setup a service in master.cf.

Here are two methods (for mailbox, not virtual mailbox), that show that
depending on what you put in main.cf, you may or may not need to update
master.cf

===
method 1
===
main.cf
-
mailbox_transport=dovecot
dovecot_destination_recipient_limit=1
-
master.cf
-
dovecot   unix  –   n   n   –   –   pipe
flags=DRhu user=mail:mail argv=/usr/lib/dovecot/dovecot-lda -f ${sender}
-d ${recipient}
-

===
method 2
===
main.cf
-
mailbox_transport = lmtp:unix:private/dovecot-lmtp
-


HTH,

Ken

Re: store into mailbox 'Junk' aborted

[kenneth topp]

>
>
> Am 22. August 2017 02:29:30 MESZ schrieb kenneth topp :
>>Hi,
>>
>>I've just switch from procmail to pigeonhole, and I'm seeing an issue
>>(twice in six hours).
>>
>>I have spamassisn running via postfix milter, and dropping off via
>>main.cf
>>"mailbox_transport = lmtp:unix:/var/lib/imap/socket/lmtp"
>>
>>The issue is that I get a sequence of these log messages:
>>
>>
>>Aug 21 19:43:59 lmtp(toppk): Debug: Junk: Mailbox opened because:
>>lib-lda
>>delivery
>>Aug 21 19:43:59 lmtp(toppk): Debug: $MAILDIR/Junk: Mailbox opened
>>because:
>>lib-lda delivery
>>Aug 21 19:43:59 lmtp(toppk): Debug: Mailbox : Opened mail
>>UID=1
>>because: copying
>>Aug 21 19:43:59 lmtp(toppk): Debug: Mailbox : Opened mail
>>UID=1
>>because: virtual size (Cache file is unusable)
>>Aug 21 19:43:59 lmtp(toppk): Info: YK1SNj9wm1kMaQAAjC58EQ: sieve:
>>msgid=: store into mailbox 'Junk'
>>aborted
>>Aug 21 19:43:59 lmtp(toppk): Debug: INBOX: Mailbox opened because:
>>lib-lda
>>delivery
>>Aug 21 19:43:59 lmtp(toppk): Debug: Mailbox : Opened mail
>>UID=1
>>because: copying
>>Aug 21 19:43:59 lmtp(toppk): Info: YK1SNj9wm1kMaQAAjC58EQ: sieve:
>>msgid=: stored mail into mailbox
>>'INBOX'
>>Aug 21 19:43:59 lmtp(toppk): Info: YK1SNj9wm1kMaQAAjC58EQ: sieve:
>>Execution of script /home/toppk/.dovecot.sieve failed, but implicit
>>keep
>>was successful (user logfile /home/toppk/.dovecot.sieve.log may reveal
>>additional details)
>>
>>and in /home/toppk/.dovecot.sieve.log I get this:
>>
>>sieve: info: started log at Aug 21 19:43:59.
>>error: msgid=: failed to store into
>>mailbox '$MAILDIR/Junk': Mailbox doesn't exist: $MAILDIR/Junk.
> What is $MAILDIR and where do you use it?
> The error message says that the path can't be found.
> I suspect the problem is in your sieve script. You probably have to use
> the full path in there.
> Oil
> Please show the contents of your sieve script.

$MAILDIR is /home/toppk/mail (for clarity, it was printing $MAILDIR)

Another thing I need to be clear on.  This sieve moves are working 99% of
the time, just once in a while it fails.

here is my /home/toppk/.dovecot.sieve.  I notice that I have confusing
(overlapping) rules.  Could that be the issue?

Thanks for any response,

Ken



# Sieve Filter

require ["fileinto","regex","envelope","vacation","reject"];

if header :matches "Subject" "*rejecttest*" {
reject "rejecttest";
discard;
stop;
}

if header :matches "List-Id" "Dovecot Mailing List " {
fileinto "lists/dovecot";
}
if header :matches "Subject" "*junktest*" {
fileinto "Junk";
}

#if header :matches "Subject" ["*money*","*Viagra*","Cialis"] {
#fileinto "Junk";
#}

if header :contains "X-Spam-Flag" "YES" {
fileinto "Junk";
}


if header :comparator "i;octet" :contains "X-Spam-Flag" "YES" {
fileinto "$MAILDIR/Junk";
}



>
>>So instead of the email going into mbox /home/toppk/mail/Junk it goes
>>into
>>INBOX (/var/mail/toppk).
>>
>>I'm watching the Junk to see if is removed for even a split second and
>>I
>>don't see that.   I'm not sure how to further track this down, or if
>>there
>>is a more optimal configuration (i'd prefer to stay mbox if possible).
>>
>>I was thinking of turning on mailbox_list_index.
>>
>>Below is the full doveadm -n output.
>>
>>Any guidance or suggestions welcome.
>>
>>Ken
>>
>>
>># 2.2.31 (65cde28): /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf
>># Pigeonhole version 0.4.19 (e5c7051)
>># OS: Linux 4.12.4-300.fc26.x86_64 x86_64 Fedora release 26 (Twenty
>>Six)
>>auth_debug = yes
>>auth_username_format = %Ln
>>log_path = /var/log/dovecot.log
>>mail_debug = yes
>>managesieve_notify_capability = mailto
>>managesieve_sieve_capability = fileinto reject envelope
>>encoded-character
>>vacation subaddress comparator-i;ascii-numeric relational regex
>>imap4flags
>>copy include variables body enotify environment mailbox date index
>>ihave
>>duplicate mime foreverypart extracttext
>>mbox_write_locks = fcntl
>>namespace inbox {
>>  inbox = yes
>>  location =
>>  mailbox Drafts {
>>special_use = \Drafts
>>  }
>>  mailbox Junk {
>>special_use = \Junk
>>  }
>>  mailbox Sent {
>>special_use = \Sent
>>  }
>>  mailbox "Sent Messages" {
>>special_use = \Sent
>>  }
>>  mailbox Trash {
>>special_use = \Trash
>>  }
>>  prefix =
>>}
>>passdb {
>>  driver = pam
>>}
>>plugin {
>>  sieve = file:~/sieve;active=~/.dovecot.sieve
>>  sieve_default = /etc/dovecot/sieve/default.sieve
>>}
>>protocols = imap lmtp sieve
>>service auth {
>>  unix_listener auth-client {
>>group = postfix
>>mode = 0660
>>user = postfix
>>  }
>>  unix_listener auth-master {
>>group = mail
>>mode = 0660
>>user = mail
>>  }
>>  user = root
>>}
>>service lmtp {
>>  unix_listener /var/spool/postfix/private/dovecot-lmtp {
>>group = postfix
>>mode = 0600
>>user = postfix
>>  }
>>}
>>service managesieve-login {
>>  inet_listener sieve 

v2.2.32 release candidate 2 released

[Timo Sirainen]

https://dovecot.org/releases/2.2/rc/dovecot-2.2.32.rc2.tar.gz
https://dovecot.org/releases/2.2/rc/dovecot-2.2.32.rc2.tar.gz.sig

A couple of changes since rc1:

 + Added apparmor plugin. See https://wiki2.dovecot.org/Plugins/Apparmor 
 - director: v2.2.31 caused rapid reconnection loops to directors
   that were down.

Also this was already in rc1's list of changes, but wasn't actually in rc1 yet:

 - dict-ldap: %variable values used in the LDAP filter weren't escaped.

Plus a few other smaller fixes.

Disconnected in APPEND depends on service_count?

[Hajo Locke]

Hello,

we have quite odd behaviour of dovecot under new OS.
We use dovecot 2.2.18 for years under Ubuntu12 and Ubuntu14. Now we use 
Ubuntu16 and notice some strange errors.
dovecot 2.2.18 is rather old, but runs reliable and we dont need newest 
features, so we packaged it again on Ubuntu16.
For explanation: We use some own patches for dovecot and insert some 
functions in deb packages, so we want to reuse our code to minimize effort.


Under ubuntu16 we see a lot of messages like this on high load servers:

Aug 22 08:28:15 hostname dovecot: imap(username): Disconnected in APPEND 
(1 msgs, 0 secs, 8192/136342 bytes) in=8379 out=830
Aug 22 08:28:16 hostname dovecot: imap(username): Disconnected in APPEND 
(1 msgs, 0 secs, 8192/136342 bytes) in=8985 out=2931
Aug 22 08:42:58 hostname dovecot: imap(username): Disconnected in APPEND 
(1 msgs, 29 secs, 13139969/42801634 bytes) in=13140054 out=404
Aug 22 08:43:01 hostname dovecot: imap(username): Disconnected in APPEND 
(1 msgs, 3 secs, 1286145/42801634 bytes) in=1286230 out=404
Aug 22 08:43:29 hostname dovecot: imap(username): Disconnected in APPEND 
(1 msgs, 2 secs, 704476/42801634 bytes) in=704561 out=404
Aug 22 08:44:29 hostname dovecot: imap(username): Disconnected in APPEND 
(1 msgs, 60 secs, 27402241/42801634 bytes) in=27402326 out=404
Aug 22 08:45:30 hostname dovecot: imap(username): Disconnected in APPEND 
(1 msgs, 3 secs, 1458177/42801634 bytes) in=1458262 out=404
Aug 22 08:46:15 hostname dovecot: imap(username): Disconnected in APPEND 
(1 msgs, 45 secs, 20594652/42801634 bytes) in=20594737 out=404
Aug 22 08:47:38 hostname dovecot: imap(username): Disconnected in APPEND 
(1 msgs, 11 secs, 4907009/42801634 bytes) in=4907094 out=404


Error occured after sending a mail, when client tries to save sent mail 
in sent-messages folder. (mbox)
Typically this is a client problem caused by firewall/virusguard or 
network erros. But we saw that many different users are effected and we 
could reproduce this behaviour on clean clients. In our logs and systemd 
journal we had no hints leading to other error-messages, no dovecot 
message which tells that limit xy was reached.  Also no hints for other 
malfunctioning services. No helpful lines with mail_debug=yes
We tried a lot and it seems that changing "service_count = 0"  to 
"service_count = 1" is part of solution. After changing and restarting 
the behaviour is like expected.


old:
service imap-login {
  executable = /usr/lib/dovecot/imap-login
  process_min_avail = 1
  service_count = 0
  user = dovecot
}

new:

service imap-login {
  executable = /usr/lib/dovecot/imap-login
  process_min_avail = 1
  service_count = 1
  user = dovecot
  process_limit = 1
}

service_count switches between number of handled client-connections. i 
dont see a relation between service_count and the permanent disconnects 
but it seems to be part of problem.

Can anybody explain this behaviour or give some handy tips?

Thanks,
Hajo

Re: imapsieve: failed to read mailbox attribute

[Darac Marjal]

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 01:55:45PM +0300, Aki Tuomi wrote:



On 22.08.2017 13:37, Darac Marjal wrote:

Hello all,

Hopefully this is something fairly simple.

I've been trying to set up the Sieve Antispam system as detailed at
https://wiki2.dovecot.org/HowTo/AntispamWithSieve, but at the moment,
whenever I change mailboxes I get the following message logged:

  Aug 22 09:30:45 remy dovecot: imap(da...@darac.org.uk): Error:
imapsieve: mailbox INBOX: Failed to read /shared/imapsieve/script
mailbox attribute

and my script does not run when I move files between folders.

My sieve files are chmod'ed 0644 and the shell script used to pipe
into spamassassin is 0755, so it *should* work, shouldn't it? Is there
something I've missed?



Can you show doveconf -n and your sieve scripts?

Aki


Certainly:

---8<---  doveconf -n  ---8<---

# 2.2.31 (65cde28): /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf
# Pigeonhole version 0.4.19 (e5c7051)
# OS: Linux 4.9.0-1-686-pae i686 Debian buster/sid xfs
auth_mechanisms = digest-md5 cram-md5 plain
auth_verbose = yes
imap_id_log = *
info_log_path = /var/log/dovecot.info
lda_mailbox_autosubscribe = yes
log_timestamp = "%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S "
login_log_format_elements = service=%s user=<%u> session=%{session} method=%m 
rip=%r lip=%l mpid=%e %c %k
mail_access_groups = mail users
mail_gid = vmail
mail_home = /var/mail/%u
mail_location = mdbox:/var/mail/%u/Mail
mail_max_userip_connections = 50
mail_plugins = " zlib fts fts_lucene stats fts fts_lucene stats"
mail_privileged_group = mail
mail_uid = vmail
managesieve_notify_capability = mailto
managesieve_sieve_capability = fileinto reject envelope encoded-character 
vacation subaddress comparator-i;ascii-numeric relational regex imap4flags copy 
include variables body enotify environment mailbox date index ihave duplicate 
mime foreverypart extracttext imapsieve vnd.dovecot.imapsieve vnd.dovecot.pipe 
vnd.dovecot.execute
namespace {
 hidden = no
 ignore_on_failure = yes
 inbox = no
 list = children
 location = mbox:~/archive:INDEX=~/archive-indexes
 prefix = _ARCHIVE/
 subscriptions = no
}
namespace {
 hidden = no
 inbox = no
 list = yes
 location = mdbox:/var/mail/%u/Mail:MAILBOXDIR=expunged
 prefix = .EXPUNGED/
 subscriptions = no
}
namespace inbox {
 inbox = yes
 location = 
 mailbox Drafts {

   special_use = \Drafts
 }
 mailbox Junk {
   special_use = \Junk
 }
 mailbox Sent {
   special_use = \Sent
 }
 mailbox "Sent Messages" {
   special_use = \Sent
 }
 mailbox Trash {
   special_use = \Trash
 }
 prefix = 
}

passdb {
 args = /etc/dovecot/passwd
 driver = passwd-file
}
plugin {
 antispam_backend = pipe
 antispam_crm_binary = /bin/false
 antispam_debug_target = syslog
 antispam_pipe_program = /usr/bin/sa-learn-pipe.sh
 antispam_pipe_program_notspam_arg = --ham
 antispam_pipe_program_spam_arg = --spam
 antispam_pipe_tmpdir = /tmp
 antispam_spam_pattern_ignorecase = SPAM
 antispam_trash_pattern_ignorecase = trash;Deleted *
 fts = lucene
 fts_lucene = whitespace_chars=@.
 imapsieve_mailbox1_before = file:/usr/lib/dovecot/sieve/learn-spam.sieve
 imapsieve_mailbox1_causes = COPY
 imapsieve_mailbox1_name = Spam
 imapsieve_mailbox2_before = file:/usr/lib/dovecot/sieve/learn-spam.sieve
 imapsieve_mailbox2_causes = COPY
 imapsieve_mailbox2_name = spam
 imapsieve_mailbox3_before = file:/usr/lib/dovecot/sieve/learn-ham.sieve
 imapsieve_mailbox3_causes = COPY
 imapsieve_mailbox3_from = Spam
 imapsieve_mailbox3_name = *
 imapsieve_mailbox4_before = file:/usr/lib/dovecot/sieve/learn-ham.sieve
 imapsieve_mailbox4_causes = COPY
 imapsieve_mailbox4_from = spam
 imapsieve_mailbox4_name = *
 imapsieve_url = sieve://mail.darac.org.uk
 lazy_expunge = .EXPUNGED/
 sieve = file:~/sieve;active=~/.dovecot.sieve
 sieve_execute_bin_dir = /usr/lib/dovecot/sieve
 sieve_extensions = +vnd.dovecot.pipe +vnd.dovecot.execute
 sieve_pipe_bin_dir = /usr/lib/dovecot/sieve
 sieve_plugins = sieve_imapsieve sieve_extprograms
 sieve_spamtest_max_header = X-Spam-Score: 
score=-?[[:digit:]]+\.[[:digit:]].*required=([[:digit:]]+\.[[:digit:]])
 sieve_spamtest_status_header = X-Spam-Score: 
score=(-?[[:digit:]]+\.[[:digit:]]).*
 sieve_spamtest_status_type = score
 stats_refresh = 30 secs
 stats_track_cmds = yes
 zlib_save = lz4
 zlib_save_level = 2
}
postmaster_address = postmas...@darac.org.uk
protocols = " imap lmtp sieve"
service auth {
 unix_listener /var/spool/postfix/private/auth {
   group = postfix
   mode = 0660
   user = postfix
 }
 unix_listener auth-userdb {
   group = vmail
   mode = 0777
   user = vmail
 }
}
service lmtp {
 inet_listener lmtp {
   address = 192.168.101.8
   port = 20024
 }
 unix_listener /var/spool/postfix/private/dovecot-lmtp {
   group = postfix
   mode = 0666
   user = postfix
 }
}
service managesieve-login {
 inet_listener sieve {
   port = 4190
 }
 inet_listener sieve_deprecated {
   port = 2000
 }
}
service stats {
 fifo_listener stats-mail {
   mode = 0600
   user = vmail
 }
}
ssl_cert = 

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: imapsieve: failed to read mailbox attribute

[Aki Tuomi]

On 22.08.2017 13:37, Darac Marjal wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Hopefully this is something fairly simple.
>
> I've been trying to set up the Sieve Antispam system as detailed at
> https://wiki2.dovecot.org/HowTo/AntispamWithSieve, but at the moment,
> whenever I change mailboxes I get the following message logged:
>
>   Aug 22 09:30:45 remy dovecot: imap(da...@darac.org.uk): Error:
> imapsieve: mailbox INBOX: Failed to read /shared/imapsieve/script
> mailbox attribute
>
> and my script does not run when I move files between folders.
>
> My sieve files are chmod'ed 0644 and the shell script used to pipe
> into spamassassin is 0755, so it *should* work, shouldn't it? Is there
> something I've missed?
>

Can you show doveconf -n and your sieve scripts?

Aki

Re: pop 110/995, imap 143/993 ?

[Robert Wolf]

On Tue, 22 Aug 2017, Ivan Warren wrote:

> Le 8/22/2017 à 10:03 AM, Robert Wolf a écrit :
> >
> > WRONG!!! The email is stored plain-text on the first server and then it can
> > be
> > sent to other few MX servers over plain-text connection. I.e. encrypted
> > connection does not protect emails, but the authentication credentials.
> >
> >
> Indeed.
> 
> Encrypted (SSL/TLS) SMTP/IMAP/POP3 sessions only server 1 purpose : To encrypt
> authentication. Once a message is sent through a MTA, there is no guarantee of
> privacy whatsoever.
> 
> End to End privacy can only be achieved through actual e-mail signing and
> encryption (PGP, S/MIME) (but only the message body is encrypted, not the
> headers).


Hello Ivan

yes, headers are not encrypted in plain-text SMTP, the same way as TCP and IP 
and DNS Requests are not encrypted. One can only hide behind some anonymization 
system (TOR, Proxy, VPN for TCP, IP, DNS) or some non-presonal mail system to 
anonymize mail headers to not be able to connect real persones with mail 
sender/recipient.

Regards,

Robert.

Re: LMTP and Postfix

[Ralph Seichter]

On 22.08.2017 12:10, Jerry wrote:

> I saw nothing about the Postfix master.cf file. Do I need to make
> and changes to it also?

No need. Assuming that you use a socket, the following combination
should suffice:

  # Dovecot
  service lmtp {
unix_listener /var/spool/postfix/private/dovecot-lmtp {
  user = postfix
  group = postfix
  mode = 0660
}
  }

  # Postfix
  mailbox_transport = lmtp:unix:private/dovecot-lmtp

If you have further questions or a more exotic setup, you might want to
consider asking on the Postfix mailing list.

-Ralph

imapsieve: failed to read mailbox attribute

[Darac Marjal]

Hello all,

Hopefully this is something fairly simple.

I've been trying to set up the Sieve Antispam system as detailed at 
https://wiki2.dovecot.org/HowTo/AntispamWithSieve, but at the moment, 
whenever I change mailboxes I get the following message logged:


  Aug 22 09:30:45 remy dovecot: imap(da...@darac.org.uk): Error: imapsieve: 
mailbox INBOX: Failed to read /shared/imapsieve/script mailbox attribute


and my script does not run when I move files between folders.

My sieve files are chmod'ed 0644 and the shell script used to pipe into 
spamassassin is 0755, so it *should* work, shouldn't it? Is there 
something I've missed?


--
For more information, please reread.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

LMTP and Postfix

[Jerry]

I am setting up a new system that will be using Dovecot with Postifx. I am
planning on using LMTP. I read the wiki and and found the
settings I need to make in Dovecot and the Postfix main.cf file. However, I
saw nothing about the Postfix master.cf file. Do I need to make and changes to
it also?

Thanks

-- 
Jerry

Re: pop 110/995, imap 143/993 ?

[Robert Wolf]

On Tue, 22 Aug 2017, Aki Tuomi wrote:

> else (NOT LOCALHOST) and you can see it says LOGINDISABLED unless you
> have enabled something like cram-md5.


Hi,

exactly, this is the reason, why plain-text is still needed. You don't need 
encryption for authentication, if you have secure authentication. Without 
knowing original password, the MITM cannot generate correct hash for login, so 
the connection can be plain-text.

Of cource, if you then download your emails, the MITM can still read these 
emails too, if these emails are plain-text (not encrypted using e.g. SMIME or 
GPG). But he cannot misuse your login.


Regards,

Robert Wolf.

Re: pop 110/995, imap 143/993 ?

[Robert Wolf]

On Mon, 21 Aug 2017, Gary wrote:

> If I read this correctly, starttls will fail due to the MITM attack. That is 
> the client knows security has been compromised. Using SSL/TLS, the MITM can 
> use SSL stripping. Since most Postifx conf use "may" for security, the 
> message would go though unencrypted. Correct???

Hi,

many people think, the email is encrypted (secured), because it is sent through 
encrypted submission connection to client's smtp/submission server. I know some 
case, where one users sends credit card numbers over encrypted channel to SMTP 
server and he thinks the card numbers are protected!

WRONG!!! The email is stored plain-text on the first server and then it can be 
sent to other few MX servers over plain-text connection. I.e. encrypted 
connection does not protect emails, but the authentication credentials.

Users should know, that they have to encrypt the email itself, if they want 
protect it.

Regards,

Robert Wolf.

Re: Re: pop 110/995, imap 143/993 ?

[Jochen Bern]

On 08/22/2017 12:42 AM, Gary wrote:
> If I read this correctly, starttls will fail due to the MITM attack. That
> is the client knows security has been compromised. [...] Since most Postifx
> conf use "may" for security, the message would go though unencrypted. 
> Correct???

Yup.

FWIW, one doesn't need to be a large provider or do full traffic
analysis to play this kind of game. A couple years back, my MUA failed
to send e-mails while I was using the wifi of a Belgian camping ground.
Looking into it, I found that SMTP was transparently redirected to an
entirely different server - which did not offer the STARTTLS that I had
my MUA insist on, either.

Kind regards,
-- 
Jochen Bern
Systemingenieur

Fon:+49 6151 9067-231
Fax:+49 6151 9067-290
E-Mail: jochen.b...@binect.de

www.binect.de
www.facebook.de/binect

Binect ist ausgezeichnet:
Sieger INNOVATIONSPREIS-IT 2017 | Das Büro: Top 100 Büroprodukte 2017

Binect GmbH

Robert-Koch-Straße 9, 64331 Weiterstadt, DE

Geschäftsführung: Dr. Frank Wermeyer, Nils Manegold
Unternehmenssitz: Weiterstadt
Register: Amtsgericht Darmstadt, HRB 94685
Umsatzsteuer-ID:  DE 221 302 264

MAX 21-Unternehmensgruppe
✁
Diese E-Mail kann vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Wenn Sie nicht
der richtige Adressat sind oder diese E-Mail irrtümlich erhalten haben,
informieren Sie bitte sofort den Absender und vernichten Sie diese
E-Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren, sowie die unbefugte Weitergabe dieser
Mail oder von Teilen dieser Mail ist nicht gestattet. Jede von der
Binect GmbH versendete Mail ist sorgfältig erstellt worden, dennoch
schließen wir die rechtliche Verbindlichkeit aus; sie kann nicht zu
einer irgendwie gearteten Verpflichtung zu Lasten der Binect GmbH
ausgelegt werden. Wir haben alle verkehrsüblichen Maßnahmen unternommen,
um das Risiko der Verbreitung virenbefallener Software oder E-Mails zu
minimieren, dennoch raten wir Ihnen, Ihre eigenen Virenkontrollen auf
alle Anhänge an dieser Nachricht durchzuführen.
Wir schließen, außer für den Fall von Vorsatz oder grober
Fahrlässigkeit, die Haftung für jeglichen Verlust oder Schäden durch
virenbefallene Software oder E-Mail aus.

This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If
you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in
error) please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any
unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of contents of this
e-mail is strictly prohibited. All Binect GmbH emails are created
thoroughly, nevertheless we do not accept any legal obligation for the
information and wording contained herein. Binect GmbH has taken
precautionary measures to reduce the risk of possible distribution of
virus infected software or emails. However, we advise you to check
attachments to this email for viruses. Except for cases of intent or
gross negligence, we cannot accept any legal obligation for loss or
damage by virus infected software.



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: pop 110/995, imap 143/993 ?

[Sebastian Arcus]

On 22/08/17 01:56, Peter wrote:

Lest anyone think STARTTLS MITM doesn't happen,

https://threatpost.com/eff-calls-out-isps-modifying-starttls-encryption-commands/109325/3/


Right, the attack does happen, but it can be prevented by properly
configuring the server and client.


Not only for security, I prefer port 993/995 as it's just plain
simpler to initiate SSL from the get-go rather than to do some
handshaking that gets you to the same point.


Simpler from a protocol perspective, yes, but not from a configuration
perspective.  A separate port requires more firewall configuration,
requires listening on more one port if you need to accept both plain
text and encrypted connections and requires that port to be allocated by
IANA. 


Seriously? So one more port to allow through the firewall is somehow 
more complex than making sure the server and/or the client is configured 
to refuse falling back to plaintext communication - and testing various 
clients and server flavours to make absolutely sure that they do what 
they are supposed to be doing and don't fall for a MITM attack? At least 
with plain SSL/TLS ports, you know for sure that if you are connected, 
it is definitely encrypted.







It would
appear that STARTTLS is significantly more vulnerable to MITM attacks
than plain SSL/TLS for all the above protocols. Is the slight extra
convenience of opportunistic encryption really worth the substantial
loss in security?


I would not say significantly.  If the client is configured to require
encryption and to validate the resulting cert from the server then any
MITM vulnerability of STARTTLS is fully mitigated.  A MITM attack is
only an issue if the client is configured for opportunistic encryption.
Note that the server side should be configured to require encryption on
as well, but the important thing is that the client requires it.


Yes - and you have a lot of "if's" above - and that is exactly what 
makes it more vulnerable in practice - where you have to make absolutely 
sure that your particular version of your particular software definitely 
behaves like that - while with plain SSL/TLS it just works and there is 
no checking needed or "if's". In real life, that makes STARTTLS less secure.

Re: pop 110/995, imap 143/993 ?

[Aki Tuomi]

On 22.08.2017 03:56, Peter wrote:
>>> Lest anyone think STARTTLS MITM doesn't happen,
>>>
>>> https://threatpost.com/eff-calls-out-isps-modifying-starttls-encryption-commands/109325/3/
> Right, the attack does happen, but it can be prevented by properly
> configuring the server and client.
Dovecot, by default, requires STARTTLS before accepting plaintext
authentication when SSL is configured and you are not connecting from
localhost. You can verify this by telnetting to port 143 from somewhere
else (NOT LOCALHOST) and you can see it says LOGINDISABLED unless you
have enabled something like cram-md5.

I think postfix, by default, will also prevent authentication without
transport security.

Also, you should probably using 587/tcp (submission) for sending mail,
instead of 25. Some reputable ISPs prevent connecting to random MX
servers to port 25 to make life harder for spambots.

Aki