On 7/24/2014 12:09 PM, Nathan Schultheiss wrote:
...
> |> Mail it's stored in MailDir format "mail_location = maildir:%h"
>
> When I go on Roundcube with a mailbox who I've 96000 in the INBOX "cur"
> folder, the first time I need 1 minutes waiting.
> The second time it's a little more quick 1
On 5/17/2014 6:14 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
...
> The reality is that the RFCs mandate that the null sender envelope
> address is one that must be accepted, as there are many things smtp
> that depend on it.
...
Spammers tried to take advantage of null sender handling en masse many
years ago and h
On 5/5/2014 2:23 PM, Patrick Domack wrote:
> Quoting Reindl Harald :
>
>> Am 05.05.2014 16:10, schrieb Hardy Flor:
>>> Is there really no one with this problem?
>>
>> next time quote the problem instead demand
>> others to seek for you in the archives
>
> Even searching for him in the archives, I
On 3/25/2014 8:18 AM, Murray Trainer wrote:
> On 25/03/14 15:06, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> On 3/24/2014 10:02 PM, Murray Trainer wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> I am using dovecot in the Director setup with multiple proxy and
>>> backend mailstores and
On 3/24/2014 10:02 PM, Murray Trainer wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I am using dovecot in the Director setup with multiple proxy and
> backend mailstores and user information stored in LDAP. I am aware
> users can be directed to a single backend server. It would be useful
> to be able to direct groups of
On 2/24/2014 10:14 AM, Steffen Kaiser wrote:
...
> I mean to add a
> BCC per user to "user"_backup, like a per user alias or forward.
>
> A message to user A is "split" into a message to user A and A_backup,
> where the new message to user A is not split again.
If using Postfix, this can be accom
On 2/24/2014 8:42 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 2/24/2014 8:39 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> On 2/24/2014 6:58 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
>>> On 2/24/2014 3:58 AM, Steffen Kaiser
>>> wrote:
>>>> I would add a BCC recipient in the MTA. It's more save
On 2/24/2014 6:58 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 2/24/2014 3:58 AM, Steffen Kaiser wrote:
>> I would add a BCC recipient in the MTA. It's more save in such
>> situation. See the thread about qmail and multiple recipients for one
>> mail address.
>
> The only downside to this is all of the origin
On 1/27/2014 11:25 PM, Thomas Johnson wrote:
> Hi Stan-
>
>>>
>>> (Stan gives a great run-down on the economics of using a NetApp
>>> or even homegrown NFS filer versus using an object storage
>>> backend.)
>>
>> Tom I'm sorry I wasted your time with my initial response.
>>
>
> No, you absolut
On 1/26/2014 11:45 AM, Tom Johnson wrote:
>
>> On Jan 24, 2014, at 7:23 PM, Stan Hoeppner
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/24/2014 11:09 AM, Tom Johnson wrote: Is anybody using the
>>> Object Storage plugin for large-scale installations?
>>
>> I&#x
This went to me only so bringing back on list.
On 1/24/2014 11:09 AM, Tom Johnson wrote:
> Is anybody using the Object Storage plugin for large-scale
> installations?
I've not used it.
> We're considering it, but are thinking of an in-house
> S3 storage system (riak, or ceph, or ?) Looking t
On 1/24/2014 6:24 AM, Javier de Miguel Rodríguez wrote:
>
>
> Great mail, Stan
>
> Another trick: you can save storage (both space & iops) using mdox and
> compression. CPU power is far cheaper than iops , the less data you
> read/write, the fewer iops.
Yeah, the cost of enterprise storage i
Sven, why didn't you chime in? Your setup is similar scale and I think
your insights would be valuable here. Or maybe you could repost your
last on this topic. Or was that discussion off list? I can't recall.
Anyway, I missed this post Murray. Thanks Ed for drudging this up.
Maybe this will g
On 1/17/2014 12:36 PM, Sven Hartge wrote:
...
> http://www.exim.org/exim-html-current/doc/html/spec_html/ch-access_control_lists.html#SECTcontrols
>
> ,
> | control = cutthrough_delivery
> |
> | This option requests delivery be attempted while the item is being
> | received. It is usable in th
On 1/16/2014 6:56 PM, Murray Trainer wrote:
> This is probably a bit off-topic but does anyone have any idea about
> sizing MTA servers. We have about 200,000 emails/hr incoming and
> outgoing. I am intending using Exim and Spamassassin on each MTA.
> How many servers using recent hardware wo
On 12/24/2013 11:02 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
> Ok, hopefully there is a solution to this.
>
> I've been experimenting with multiple rsyncs in preparation for pulling
> the trigger on the mail server switch, but have a problem that I really
> want to fox before doing so.
>
> Apparently something
On 12/10/2013 8:15 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
> There has been some whispers about considering migrating our mail
> systems to Exchange Server. I want to try to nip this in the bud.
>
> I would like to ask for some help with providing some kind of comparison
> of large(r) commercial companies use
On 11/8/2013 7:07 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> I've never really wanted to create my own MTA, because I like Postfix
And given Postfix, Exim, etc, are mature and feature complete, why would
you want to at this time?
> My main design goals for the MTA are:
...
> * Dovecot MTA is a new product
"Pro
On 10/22/2013 10:27 PM, Robin wrote:
> On 10/22/2013 3:22 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
>> But I agree with you on the rest, since of those 500K IP's Marc claims
>> to have I'd bet that 99% are hijacked innocent pc's/servers, and of
>> them, >75% would likely be a one time usage.
>
> This accords with ou
On 10/3/2013 1:43 AM, Hugh Davenport wrote:
> Basically I want the following scenario:
>
> Subscribe to lots of mailing lists
> - each filtered into separate folders
>
> When I participate in a thread (by starting it, replying to it, or ...
> setting a flag on an email
> in the thread)
> - filter
On 9/26/2013 9:47 AM, Patricio Rojo wrote:
You failed to mention every client device you've tested is connecting to
the server from over 5000 miles away, across continents and an ocean,
with your packets traversing multiple national and political boundaries.
> rip=24.58.62.118,
On 9/25/2013 5:05 PM, Patricio Rojo wrote:
> Please help,
>
> Dovecot is running extremely slow for the last couple of weeks and it
> seems to be getting worse (or my patience running short).
Progressive degradation of mail server performance, whether an IMAP
mailbox server, or an MTA, is almost
On 9/24/2013 3:05 AM, Robert Schetterer wrote:
> you may get problems with older mail clients , on smtp side i discovered
> i.e netscape 7 ist not able to handle stuff bigger then 1024
> but some more configure options maybe fine ever
Netscape 7.2 is *9* years old, 7.0 is *11* years old. I think
On 9/24/2013 1:48 AM, Marios Titas wrote:
> Currently, dovecot generates two primes for Diffie-Hellman key
> exchanges: a 512-bit one and a 1024-bit one. In light of recent
> events, I think it would be wise to add support for 2048-bit primes as
> well...
Why play incremental tiddly-winks with the
On 9/17/2013 3:23 PM, Andreas Gaiser wrote:
> Does anybody know about GlusterFS & Dovecot?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=dovecot+glusterfs
--
Stan
On 9/16/2013 8:24 AM, Simon Fraser wrote:
>
> Time marches on, and I need to continue the service migration. I'd still
> like to use Dovecot (we're migrating away from Cyrus). I'm assuming the
> only other alternative without existing shared storage is to use DRBD
> and a cluster file system to p
On 9/14/2013 12:33 AM, Avinash Sultanpur wrote:
> How can I disable mail delivery to a user or a mailbox temporarily. Is
> there something in the lines of qmail where you set a sticky bit on
> the home directory and mail delivery is deferred?
This is a job for your MTA, not Dovecot. Dovecot has
On 9/1/2013 2:59 PM, Noel wrote:
> On 9/1/2013 10:00 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
...
>> Wonder if there's a way to leverage Stan Hoeppner's most excellent
>> botnet killer to reject AUTHs from the same types of clients
>> before they even try?
>
> The objective of Stan's list is to reject dynamic hos
On 8/23/2013 3:30 AM, Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 08:57:40PM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> 130m to 18m is 'only' a 7 fold decrease. 18m inodes is still rather
>> large for any filesystem, cluster or local. A check on an 18m inode XFS
>> f
On 8/24/2013 4:20 PM, Sulla wrote:
> I've got a dovecot IMAP server running (TLS, port 149) on Ubuntu 13.04
> server behind a DSL router. The mailserver's IP is 10.0.0.1
...
> However, when I connect to my mailserver through the internet (from
> 10.196.124.7 which is a modem of my ISP), dovecot ig
On 8/23/2013 7:17 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 2013-08-22 9:57 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> On 8/21/2013 4:07 PM, Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote:
>>
>>> I would strongly suggest using mdbox instead. AFAIK clusterfs' aren't
>> I'd recommend mdbox as we
On 8/21/2013 4:07 PM, Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote:
> I would strongly suggest using mdbox instead. AFAIK clusterfs' aren't
I'd recommend mdbox as well, with a healthy rotation size. The larger
files won't increase IMAP performance substantially but they can make
backup significantly quicker.
> ve
On 8/21/2013 5:37 AM, Kavish Karkera wrote:
> We have a serious issue running on our POP/IMAP servers these days. The load
> average of a servers
> spikes up to 400-500 as a uptime command result, for a particular time
> period , to be specific
> mostly in noon time and evening, but it last f
On 8/20/2013 5:27 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 2013-08-20 4:35 AM, Kutrus Neloy wrote:
>> My question is:
>> Is it possible to get this problem with my version? 1.2.17 ?
>
> It is no longer supported.
I must have missed that announcement. I recall Timo saying something to
the effect that he w
On 8/20/2013 1:47 AM, Ben wrote:
>> IDLE is not required for this. Polling, which is the default on all
>> MUAs,
>
> Not entirely sure I'd call it "the default", Thunderbird seems to setup
> for IDLE as default these days, and I suspect Apple Mail and any of the
> other popular ones do too.
>
>
On 8/19/2013 6:55 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 20.08.2013 01:45, schrieb Stan Hoeppner:
>> On 8/19/2013 4:10 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>>> may i suggest you read about how IMAP IDLE works?
>>
>> Oh, well sure, if you hang your hat on IDLE then your argu
On 8/19/2013 4:10 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> may i suggest you read about how IMAP IDLE works?
Oh, well sure, if you hang your hat on IDLE then your arguments here
might make sense. But because of the brain dead one socket per folder
architecture of IDLE few have adopted it en masse. Which is w
On 8/19/2013 7:03 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 19.08.2013 14:00, schrieb LuKreme:
>> All of a sudden I am getting these errors on one of my accounts:
>>
>> imap-login: Info: Maximum number of connections from user+IP exceeded
>> (mail_max_userip_connections=10)
>> It was working fine last n
On 8/5/2013 4:28 AM, John Williams wrote:
> *Desired behaviour* When Gnus (or whatever MUA) asks for new mail from
> Dovecot, that before Dovecot returns and answer, the sieve rules are
> executed. Please tell me if I completely misunderstand how the mail
> system works in this instance.
Sieve
On 8/2/2013 6:57 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-08-02 at 15:34 +0800, Kavish Karkera wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> We are repeatedly getting these below warnings for some of our users, al
>> though we have no complaints from them yet,
>> we need to know why these warning occurs.
>>
>> So it would
On 8/2/2013 4:34 AM, Nigel Smith wrote:
>> Unfortunately you failed to provide 'dovecot -n' output which makes
>> assisting you much more difficult. Providing this is standard operating
>> procedure.
> Sorry, but What on earth are you on about ?
>
> From the man page " -n Dump non-defau
On 8/2/2013 3:25 AM, Nigel Smith wrote:
>> Probably a namespace issue. The imap daemon is telling you there's not
>> new mail. So wherever it's looking it sees no mail. So either it's
>> looking in the wrong place, and the configuration isn't correct. Error
>> logs will inform you about the la
On 8/2/2013 3:07 AM, Nigel Smith wrote:
> Dovecot : 2.0.19 (see config at http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=KMaQ9Ccc)
> Postfix : 2.9.6 (see config at http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=EEeevHfk)
>
> I'm trying to get Dovecot and Postfix working on Ubuntu 12.04LTS but am not
> having much luck.
>
> The
On 7/30/2013 8:37 PM, Ben Morrow wrote:
> At 3PM -0700 on 30/07/13 you (Joseph Tam) wrote:
>> Martin Burgraf writes:
>>
>>> And when it's running as root there is always the danger
>>> of privilege escalation. LDA only runs when it's needed and since it
>>> uses only user rights it shoudbe more h
On 7/29/2013 6:05 PM, Ben Morrow wrote:
> At 4PM -0500 on 29/07/13 you (Stan Hoeppner) wrote:
>> On 7/29/2013 2:30 AM, Jan Behrend wrote:
>>
>>> You cannot use the LDA method if SMTP and IMAP services reside on
>>> different machines, which would be the case in la
On 7/29/2013 2:30 AM, Jan Behrend wrote:
> You cannot use the LDA method if SMTP and IMAP services reside on
> different machines, which would be the case in larger scale mail system
> setups.
Which brings up an interesting point. With a single LMTP daemon on the
Dovecot server communicating via
On 7/25/2013 10:25 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Thursday 25 July 2013 22:45:04 Stan Hoeppner did opine:
>
>> On 7/25/2013 2:45 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
>>> However, I would really like to start with some in depth docs, docs I
>>> am not having a lot of luck finding.
On 7/25/2013 2:45 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> However, I would really like to start with some in depth docs, docs I am
> not having a lot of luck finding. But I am not, as you can see, too
> bashful to go ask the source. ;)
The main problem you're facing right now is that you don't really yet
gr
On 7/25/2013 8:02 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Thursday 25 July 2013 08:38:33 Steffen Kaiser did opine:
>
>> there might be a misunderstanding here, Dovecot is an IMAP and POP3
>> server. It ships tools that replicate messages from other Dovecot
>> servers and in limits from other IMAP servers.
>>
On 7/23/2013 3:07 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 23.07.2013 22:04, schrieb Benny Pedersen:
>> Sam Flint skrev den 2013-07-21 00:34:
>>> I'm using Dovecot v2, and I can't seem to find any info abut using sieve
>>> with the LDA, or the ManageSieve protocol, can you please point me un the
>>> right
On 7/20/2013 9:20 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
> It sounds great, a real win-win as to cost *and* performance...
Until you read the article carefully and note the network requirement:
"Data is synchronously written to another host with a PCIe SSD for data
protection and high availability via a simp
On 7/2/2013 8:32 PM, Professa Dementia wrote:
> On 7/2/2013 6:21 PM, John Fawcett wrote:
>> dnsbl's are a popular method to prevent listed ips from making
>> connections to mta software.
>>
>> cf. postscreen_dnsbl_sites in postfix
>>
>> Would it be possible to introduce such a feature in dovecot, s
uld use another library like pam_krb5.so?
> Sorry for so many questions and thanks again
http://wiki2.dovecot.org/Authentication/Mechanisms/Winbind
http://wiki2.dovecot.org/Authentication/Mechanisms/NTLM
> 2013/6/26 Stan Hoeppner
>
>> On 6/26/2013 1:17 PM, Maria Jose Yañez Dacosta w
On 6/26/2013 1:17 PM, Maria Jose Yañez Dacosta wrote:
> I want to use single sign on from Windows with Thunderbird or Outlook using
> NTLM.
http://wiki2.dovecot.org/Authentication/Kerberos
--
Stan
On 5/22/2013 10:47 AM, Davide wrote:
> Hi to all is it possible to use dovecot lda to pipe emails into enkive
> socket? if yes how?
No. See:
http://wiki.enkive.org/index.php/1.2_Installation_Instructions#Postfix
Why would you want Dovecot to feed Enkive?
--
Stan
On 5/9/2013 11:05 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
> This would be awesome, as we deal with a lot of large attachments, and
> when people are working from home, it can take many many seconds (even a
> minute or so for very large attachments depending on their internet
> connection speed) to send, and the
On 5/9/2013 9:11 AM, Steinar Bang wrote:
> The preferred syslogd for debian is now rsyslog:
> http://wiki.debian.org/Rsyslog
Did you happen to notice that rsyslog became the default syslog daemon
with the release of Lenny? That was Feb 14, 2009, over 4 years ago.
Your system went through 3 dist
On 5/4/2013 10:54 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 2013-05-04 11:20 AM, Marc Perkel wrote:
>> For what it's worth if you can afford it I'd use SSD drives. My server
>> screams since I went to SSD.
>
> Hi Marc,
>
> You have no idea how much I would love to use SSDs for this. But the
> cost was simp
On 5/4/2013 9:52 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 2013-05-03 11:10 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> On 5/3/2013 9:21 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
>>> On 2013-05-03 8:34 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>>> I assume /var will hold user mail dirs.
>>> Yes, in /var/vmail
>
On 5/3/2013 9:21 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 2013-05-03 8:34 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> I assume /var will hold user mail dirs.
>
> Yes, in /var/vmail
>
>> Do /var/ and /snaps reside on the same RAID array, physical disks?
>
> Yes - vmware host is a Del
On 5/3/2013 12:14 AM, Michael Weissenbacher wrote:
...
> last quesion, stay with the defaults when doing mkfs.xfs, optimizing for
> stripe width and stipe size and all those other options really only make
> sense on a physical machine.
The potential benefit of alignment is always workload dependen
On 5/3/2013 6:30 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 2013-05-03 1:30 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> From a filesystem perspective mdbox is little different from maildir as
>> they both exhibit lots of small random IOs.
>
> Hi Stan. Thanks, was hoping you'd chime in here...
&g
On 5/3/2013 4:34 AM, Alessio Cecchi wrote:
> Il 03/05/2013 10:48, Stan Hoeppner ha scritto:
>> On 5/2/2013 7:04 AM, Alessio Cecchi wrote:
>>
>>> "rw,noatime,attr2,delaylog,nobarrier,inode64,noquota"
>> ...
>>> and I'm running it on RHEL 6.4
&
On 5/3/2013 4:31 AM, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
> If you are going to insult you maybe should write it so non native
> speakers could find it (malarkey).
Sorry Andreas. I didn't intend that as an insult, merely an expression
of strong disagreement with statements not grounded in facts.
> It is
On 5/2/2013 8:17 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
> man mount doesn't show delaylog, nobarrier or noquota as valid mount
> options... ?
Many XFS mount options are kernel version specific. Show:
~$ uname -a
Delaylog doesn't exist in recent mount(8) because it's no longer a mount
option, same goes for o
On 5/2/2013 8:21 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 02.05.2013 15:17, schrieb Charles Marcus:
>> but what I'm still unsure of for a VM
>> environment is the delaylog and nobarrier options.
Delaylog is fine for VM guests. The barrier settings may all simply be
useless because many hypervisors don
On 5/2/2013 7:04 AM, Alessio Cecchi wrote:
> "rw,noatime,attr2,delaylog,nobarrier,inode64,noquota"
...
> and I'm running it on RHEL 6.4
I assume this is from /proc/mounts? All of those but for noatime,
nobarrier, and inode64 are defaults. You've apparently specified these
in /etc/fstab. noatim
On 5/2/2013 8:12 AM, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
> IMHO if you say "VM" than the filesystem inside the guest doesn't matter
> that much.
Malarky.
> The difference of ext4/xfs are mostly the knowledge and
> adjustability for special (high-end) hardware and the like. With a
XFS doesn't require "h
On 5/2/2013 6:16 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
...
> I've decided to use mdbox for storage (been using maildir), and will
> enable SIS for attachments.
>
> So, anyone (Stan?) have any suggestions? Should I go with EXT4? Or XFS
> with just the defaults? Or XFS with one or more tuned parameters?
>
> Ap
On 4/30/2013 1:07 PM, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 30 at 08:04 AM, quoth Gregory Sloop:
>> Any ideas where to look next, what I might do to force dovecot to
>> forget message ID's etc - that might force it to read the whole
>> mailbox file again?
>
> Find the dovecot.index files for tha
On 4/21/2013 2:10 AM, lutz.niede...@gmx.net wrote:
>>> I have several mbox files (unstructured, only the big plain mbox files) and
>>> I would like to integrate/read these mbox files into mdbox subfolders of
>>> specific users. This is a production system and I don't want to disturb
>>> running
On 4/20/2013 12:03 PM, lutz.niede...@gmx.net wrote:
> I have several mbox files (unstructured, only the big plain mbox files) and I
> would like to integrate/read these mbox files into mdbox subfolders of
> specific users. This is a production system and I don't want to disturb
> running servi
On 4/18/2013 1:51 AM, Rich Wales wrote:
> I have some questions about whether I should set up folders under
> INBOX vs. having them outside the INBOX namespace.
>
> I'm setting up a new Dovecot 2.2.0 on an Ubuntu 12.04.2 server.
>
> My plan is to move my users (family members) to this new server
> On 25/03/2013 18:47, Thierry de Montaudry wrote:
>> This is just my experience, it might not be the best, but with the
>> (limited) budget we had, we finally came up with a solutions that can
>> handle the load and got us away from SAN systems which could never
>> handle the IOs for mail access.
On 3/28/2013 3:34 PM, Ed W wrote:
> I believe a variation on that theme is also to "double" each machine
> using DRBD so that machines are arranged in pairs. One can fail and the
> other will take over the load. ie each pair of machines mirrors the
> storage for the other. With this arrangement onl
On 3/24/2013 1:45 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On 24.3.2013, at 18.12, Tigran Petrosyan wrote:
>
>> We are going to implement the "Dovecot" for 1 million users. We are going
>> to use more than 100T storage space. Now we examine 2 solutions NFS or GFS2
>> via (Fibre Channel storage).
>> Can someone
On 3/18/2013 11:37 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> So basically you're saying that the major documentation improvement = an
> index listing/describing all settings. Sure, would be useful, but I
> don't see having time to write that anytime soon.
The time issue is perfectly understandable Timo.
My sug
On 3/17/2013 3:50 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> It's the best I can do myself. I have no idea how they could be improved in
> any major way. They say that the software developer himself is the worst
> possible person to write its documentation, because he can't understand what
> others find diffic
On 3/17/2013 5:10 PM, David Benfell wrote:
> More words to treasure. (Not that Timo envisions himself any kind of
> Fuehrer.) This reaches to a certain deification of certain individuals
> and organizations in the community--whether they themselves would be
> deified or not; I know examples of bot
On 3/17/2013 11:39 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 2013-03-17 10:13 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> On 3/17/2013 5:25 AM, Professa Dementia wrote:
>>> And just a friendly word of advice: change your attitude or you will
>>> find your cries fall on deaf ears.
>
>
On 3/17/2013 5:25 AM, Professa Dementia wrote:
> We are very sorry you are not satisfied with the software. Please feel
> free to return the software for a full refund of all the money you paid.
You do not speak on behalf of Dovecot, Timo, this list, and certainly
not for me. Do not use "we" in
On 3/13/2013 8:01 AM, Phil Turmel wrote:
> On 03/13/2013 01:51 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> On 3/13/2013 12:00 AM, Alex wrote:
>
>> I just verified that TB (17.0.4) won't do STARTTLS on TCP 143 without
>> first accepting the self signed cert.
>>
>>> I&#x
On 3/13/2013 3:38 AM, Patrick Joy wrote:
> On 13/03/13 16:28, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> On 3/12/2013 11:30 PM, Patrick Joy wrote:
>>> Thanks for the reply.
>>>
>>> I have been putting off an upgrade as I need to upgrade the complete OS
>>> which is not a
On 3/13/2013 12:00 AM, Alex wrote:
> Hi,
Hi "Alex"
>> I have an fc18 system with postfix and dovecot-2.1.13 and have
>> configured them to use sasl for SMTP Auth and Maildir with imaps.
>>
>> The system is running now, so I'm trying to set up thunderbird to
>> autodetect all settings during the i
r now.
Probably a good idea. As well as educating the user who attached a 4GB
file. That's just plain nuts and smacks of ignorance. Honestly I'm
surprised Outlook didn't crash when attaching such a file.
--
Stan
> On 13/03/13 15:07, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> On 3/1
On 3/12/2013 9:55 PM, Patrick Joy wrote:
> Would appreciate some advice on this issue.
>
> I'm running dovecot version 1.0.10 on ubuntu 8.04 LTS.
Ancient and no longer supported. Upgrade to the latest 1.2.x or 2.x
that you can get from your distro ecosystem, or install from source if
necessary.
On 2/5/2013 12:15 PM, Arnaud Abélard wrote:
> I changed the vsz_limit to 512MB and it seems better, but I'm still
> surprised my mailbox actually hit the memory limit since I doubt it's
> most used one.
According to the wiki, vsz_limit only affects login processes, not IMAP
processes, which is od
On 1/29/2013 1:37 AM, Alexandr Sabitov wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I have noticed that dovecot.index is not generated straight away if you have
> just a few emails in the mailbox. Instead of that dovecot.index.log is
> modified and accessed by clients.
>
> Only if the number of email reaches some le
On 1/23/2013 2:59 AM, Bernics Gábor | Penta Unió Zrt. wrote:
> I use Roundcube and Thunderbird.
Do both clients experience the 5-6 second delay?
> Memory usage: 1.2 Gbyte of 6 Gbyte (Can I increase cache memory size
> for Dovecot?)
No, but you should change to:
mmap_disable=no
and add:
mai
On 1/14/2013 4:36 AM, Bernics Gábor | Penta Unió Zrt. wrote:
> I upgraded my dovecot server (1.2 -> 2.1), from debian
> backport because it was a little slow (wait 5-6 sec) when I opened some
> mail (but not every mail).
> Unfortunately, the mail open speed didn't
> increase.
> I think it's an ind
On 12/15/2012 1:44 AM, Peer Heinlein wrote:
> But we're having much more then >> 30 TB of maildata and doing an fsck
> on huge partitions takes too much (down-) time for our mailsystem.
Peer are you using NFS or a cluster filesystem? Linux on the hosts or
other?
--
Stan
On 12/7/2012 8:46 AM, Jost Krieger wrote:
> I have a rather large and active mdbox (28 GB, 3M mess, 1200
> deliveries/day). I usually have no problems working with those mails,
> and there is some batch processing going on (via doveadm).
>
> Every few weeks I try my luck running doveadm purge, and
On 11/27/2012 9:21 PM, David Morsberger wrote:
> Resending because I didn't get any responses from my first post:
>
> I just converted my old server running UW/Panda to a Mac Mini Server running
> Mountain Lion (ML) Server. I'm using the postfix / dovecot setup provided by
> Apple.
>
> My IMAP
On 11/26/2012 3:39 PM, 1st WebDesigns wrote:
> Thanks, all your comments are noted.
>
>> As I said, you can migrate users individually. You could easily do 10
>> users a day during coffee breaks etc and be done in a month plus. Do 40
>> a day and you're done in 10 days. The only time you'll bur
On 11/26/2012 1:58 PM, 1st WebDesigns wrote:
>
>> So this is a step in the right direction. But still far less than
>> optimal. The read/write lock contention on mbox is unnecessarily eating
>> up system resources (mainly memory), and causing unnecessary delivery
>> delays to the mailbox. You s
On 11/23/2012 5:36 AM, 1st WebDesigns wrote:
> No they are not on NFS storage, the mailboxes are stored on the local
> filesystem.
Ok, good.
> Thank you I will try this. I did read that when using Postfix and
> Dovecot, both systems should use a matching locking mechanism, which I
> had already
the
support. That's the whole reason for "paying for" a Linux distro. What
is preventing you from upgrading to RHEL 6.3, the current release?
Which BTW is behind nearly all other distros WRT package versions. For
instance Debian stable has Dovecot 2.1.7 available in the backpor
On 11/12/2012 5:15 AM, 1st WebDesigns wrote:
> Thanks for your replies. I switched to Dovecot LDA this morning, but
> the issue still persists, albeit logged slightly differently by Dovecot
> now instead of Postfix:
>
> "save failed to INBOX: Timeout while waiting for lock"
>
> The reason is bec
On 11/10/2012 2:25 PM, Ben Morrow wrote:
> The usual meaning of 'lock contention' is 'two processes legitimately
> competing for the *same* lock'.
Sure, this is the textbook definition, and software designers will
discuss it as such in that context. However, when systems users use the
term, in a
On 11/8/2012 5:53 PM, Ben Morrow wrote:
> At 3AM -0600 on 8/11/12 you (Stan Hoeppner) wrote:
>>
>> 1.0.7 is absolutely ancient and no longer officially supported. You
>> need 1.2.x minimum, 2.x.x even better. And you say you just recently
>> upgraded your Linux distr
1 - 100 of 681 matches
Mail list logo
