dovecot - Sep 2011 - mail_max_userip_connections=10

Hi,

 

A couple of questions rather than a problem for once!

 

We've got our Dovecot server running smoothly now apart from our MD.
He's
having problems with mail_max_userip_connections. He has 3
(Phone/Laptop/Tablet) items that all connect to the server at about the same
time. Which means he's frequently running over the max_userip_connections.

 

My questions are: 

 

Is there anyway of whitelisting an IP so that it can ignore
mail_max_userip_connections=10?

 

What should we set mail_max_userip_connections too realistically? 10 seems a
bit low?

 

Thanks 

 

Tom

On 09/19/11 04:27, Tom Clark wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of questions rather than a problem for once!
> 
> 
> 
> We've got our Dovecot server running smoothly now apart from our MD.
He's
> having problems with mail_max_userip_connections. He has 3
> (Phone/Laptop/Tablet) items that all connect to the server at about the
same
> time. Which means he's frequently running over the
max_userip_connections.
> 
> 
> 
> My questions are:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there anyway of whitelisting an IP so that it can ignore
> mail_max_userip_connections=10?
> 
> 
> 
> What should we set mail_max_userip_connections too realistically? 10 seems
a
> bit low?
> 
Hi Tom,

   The setting mail_max_userip_connections is per IP.

from 20-imap.conf (version 2.0.13, the version we are running)

# Maximum number of IMAP connections allowed for a user from each IP address.
# NOTE: The username is compared case-sensitively.
#mail_max_userip_connections = 10

I am going to assume he has a different IP for each device, in this case that
would allow up to 30 connections.

You need to  post your 'doveconf -n' output!

Cheers,
Paul

On 19.9.2011, at 11.27, Tom Clark wrote:
> Is there anyway of whitelisting an IP so that it can ignore
> mail_max_userip_connections=10?
With v2.0 in theory:

remote 1.2.3.4 {
  mail_max_userip_connections = 0
}

I don't know if it actually works.
> What should we set mail_max_userip_connections too realistically? 10 seems
a
> bit low?
It's 10 because I thought it would be enough :)