Hi, I had some problems connecting TB 2.x with dovecot 2.0. TB2 complained about not being an IMAP4 server. TB 3 worked. It seems that dovecot 2.0 doesn't return capabilities when queried. Maybe some wrong config, thoug? Here are the debug logs from TB2 comparing dovecot 2.0 (not working) and dovecot 1.2 (working): Dovecot 2.0: NA:CreateNewLineFromSocket: * OK [CAPABILITY IMAP4rev1 LITERAL+ SASL-IR LOGIN-REFERRALS ID ENABLE AUTH=PLAIN AUTH=LOGIN AUTH=DIGEST-MD5 AUTH=CRAM-MD5] Dovecot ready. NA:SendData: 1 capability ReadNextLine [stream=26c2d60 nb=15 needmore=0] NA:CreateNewLineFromSocket: * CAPABILITY ReadNextLine [stream=26c2d60 nb=28 needmore=0] NA:CreateNewLineFromSocket: 1 OK Capability completed. ProcessCurrentURL: aborting queued urls NA:SendData: 2 logout Dovecot 1.2: NA:CreateNewLineFromSocket: * OK [CAPABILITY IMAP4rev1 LITERAL+ SASL-IR LOGIN-REFERRALS ID ENABLE AUTH=PLAIN AUTH=LOGIN AUTH=DIGEST-MD5 AUTH=CRAM-MD5] Dovecot ready. NA:SendData: 1 capability ReadNextLine [stream=27dcf50 nb=303 needmore=0] NA:CreateNewLineFromSocket: * CAPABILITY IMAP4rev1 LITERAL+ SASL-IR LOGIN-REFERRALS ID ENABLE SORT THREAD=REFERENCES THREAD=REFS MULTIAPPEND UNSELECT IDLE CHILDREN NAMESPACE UIDPLUS LIST-EXTENDED I18NLEVEL=1 CONDSTORE QRESYNC ESEARCH ESORT SEARCHRES WITHIN CONTEXT=SEARCH QUOTA AUTH=PLAIN AUTH=LOGIN AUTH=DIGEST-MD5 AUTH=CRAM-MD5 ReadNextLine [stream=27dcf50 nb=28 needmore=0] NA:CreateNewLineFromSocket: 1 OK Capability completed. NA:SendData: 2 authenticate plain ReadNextLine [stream=27dcf50 nb=4 needmore=0] NA:CreateNewLineFromSocket: + NA:SendData: Logging suppressed for this command (it probably contained authentication information) ReadNextLine [stream=27dcf50 nb=266 needmore=0] NA:CreateNewLineFromSocket: 2 OK [CAPABILITY IMAP4rev1 LITERAL+ SASL-IR LOGIN-REFERRALS ID ENABLE SORT THREAD=REFERENCES THREAD=REFS MULTIAPPEND UNSELECT IDLE CHILDREN NAMESPACE UIDPLUS LIST-EXTENDED I18NLEVEL=1 CONDSTORE QRESYNC ESEARCH ESORT SEARCHRES WITHIN CONTEXT=SEARCH QUOTA] Logged in A:SendData: 3 namespace And all goes well... TB3 seems to be fine without extra capability stuff. Regards, Sebastian
On Tue, 2009-05-26 at 11:20 +0000, ja nein wrote:> Hi, > > I had some problems connecting TB 2.x with dovecot 2.0. TB2 complained about not being an IMAP4 server. TB 3 worked. > It seems that dovecot 2.0 doesn't return capabilities when queried. Maybe some wrong config, thoug?I think you can set imap_capability setting manually, but yeah, it's broken currently. I'm not exactly sure how it should be implemented now. Should doveconf do it? Should Dovecot master process do it? Should there be a completely new binary for it? Hmm..> TB3 seems to be fine without extra capability stuff.Does it still ask for the CAPABILITY command? One solution could actually be that Dovecot just stops giving the full CAPABILITY before logging in. I did some tests for this recently, and it looked like as long as the capability is forcibly pushed to the client after login, most clients will use it. v1.2+ already does this when proxying to an IMAP server with different capabilities than what were advertised for the client previously. I haven't tried it with Outlook though, that could be the one client that ignores it.. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20090526/e51ec116/attachment-0002.bin>
Am 27.05.2009 04:44, schrieb Timo Sirainen:> >> TB3 seems to be fine without extra capability stuff. >> > > Does it still ask for the CAPABILITY command? One solution could > actually be that Dovecot just stops giving the full CAPABILITY before > logging in. I did some tests for this recently, and it looked like as > long as the capability is forcibly pushed to the client after login, > most clients will use it. v1.2+ already does this when proxying to an > IMAP server with different capabilities than what were advertised for > the client previously. I haven't tried it with Outlook though, that > could be the one client that ignores it.. >Well, as from the TB debug logs, both versions use the capability command before the login sequence. I couldn't think of any reason why not to give the capabilities when being asked for, but I don't know the RFC's or whatever else is dealing with that kind of problem. In my opinion, dovecot should give capabilities, regardless if before or after login sequence. What would be the problem of it or why would it be intented to be removed. It would actually just break with a rather common client and change behaviour to all previous versions. Regards, Sebastian
On May 27, 2009, at 2:40 AM, Rich Wales wrote:> While I recognize that Timo has some valid points here with regard > to determining capabilities before vs. after login, I definitely > would consider breaking compatibility with Thunderbird to be a > MAJOR, MAJOR showstopper, regardless of the reasons for doing it.I never said anything about breaking Thunderbird.
answered the wrong address... Timo Sirainen schrieb:> On May 27, 2009, at 2:35 AM, reg9009 wrote: > >> what if TB just needs the "IMAP4rev1" capability before logging in? > > That's a completely different issue. Meaning that v2.0 is buggy here > currently and returning an empty string, because I haven't yet decided > how to fix it.That explains all :) I'll try imap_capability manual override for now. Btw., when I telnet to the server, I get * OK [CAPABILITY IMAP4rev1 LITERAL+ SASL-IR LOGIN-REFERRALS ID ENABLE AUTH=PLAIN AUTH=LOGIN AUTH=DIGEST-MD5 AUTH=CRAM-MD5] Dovecot ready. What's this capability string? Couldn't we use this one, at least until a user is logging in?> >> Where is the setting "imap_capability" used? I could try and see how TB >> is behaving, in parallel to Outlook, OE, etc. > > What do you mean by used? You should be able to just set in dovecot.conf: > > imap_capability = imap4rev1 and other stuff > >I didn't know if that shoul be used in some section or directly in dovecot.conf. Thx. Regards, Sebastian
> I never said anything about breaking Thunderbird.Sorry if I misinterpreted your response to reg9009 at yahoo.de (when he said that your proposed change "would actually just break with a rather common client and change behaviour to all previous versions"). -- Rich Wales / richw at richw.org / richw at stanford.edu Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Richwales Facebook: http://www.new.facebook.com/profile.php?id=206680