search for: 0.4.20

Hi, looking at the source archive of pigeonhole 0.4.20 <https://pigeonhole.dovecot.org/releases/2.2/dovecot-2.2-pigeonhole-0.4.20.tar.gz> I noticed that the contained ChangeLog mentions v0.4.20.rc1 as first entry and pigeonhole-version.h defines git revision 7cd71ba as version where I'd expect 4a55e6c. This is probably no big deal. But since Makefile.in and install-sh also differ (see

Op 8/31/2017 om 1:25 PM schreef Markus Sch?nhaber: > Hi, > > looking at the source archive of pigeonhole 0.4.20 > <https://pigeonhole.dovecot.org/releases/2.2/dovecot-2.2-pigeonhole-0.4.20.tar.gz> > I noticed that the contained ChangeLog mentions v0.4.20.rc1 as first > entry and pigeonhole-version.h defines git revision 7cd71ba as version > where I'd expect 4a55e6c.

Hi i have a problem compiling as mantioned on object of this mail: i'm changing dovecot on my debian 6 from version 2.2.32 to 2.2.36 and pigeonhole from 0.4.20 to 0.4.24 this is output of dovecot -n for listing versions installed dovecot -n # 2.2.32 (dfbe293d4): /usr/local/etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf # Pigeonhole version 0.4.20 (7cd71ba) # OS: Linux 2.6.32-5-amd64 x86_64 Debian 6.0.10 i have

Hello Dovecot users, Here's the definitive 0.4.20 release. There were no changes since the release candidate. Changelog v0.4.20: + Made the retention period for redirect duplicate identifiers configurable. For accounts that perform many redirects, the lda-dupes database could grow to impractical sizes. Changed the default retention period from 24 to 12 hours. - sieve-filter: Fixed

Hello Dovecot users, Here's the definitive 0.4.20 release. There were no changes since the release candidate. Changelog v0.4.20: + Made the retention period for redirect duplicate identifiers configurable. For accounts that perform many redirects, the lda-dupes database could grow to impractical sizes. Changed the default retention period from 24 to 12 hours. - sieve-filter: Fixed

Hello Dovecot users, Here's a release candidate for a quick Pigeonhole release, mostly containing fixes. One fix addresses a problem caused by the previous release. Changelog v0.4.20: + Made the retention period for redirect duplicate identifiers configurable. For accounts that perform many redirects, the lda-dupes database could grow to impractical sizes. Changed the default

Hello Dovecot users, Here's a release candidate for a quick Pigeonhole release, mostly containing fixes. One fix addresses a problem caused by the previous release. Changelog v0.4.20: + Made the retention period for redirect duplicate identifiers configurable. For accounts that perform many redirects, the lda-dupes database could grow to impractical sizes. Changed the default

Yep On 10.08.2018 11:06, davide marchi wrote: > Thanks Aki for your quick response!! I'm sorry, so i have to compile > and install dovecot version 2.2.36 before compiling and install > pigeonhole 0.4.24? If so sorry for my noob approach > > Il giorno ven 10 ago 2018 alle ore 09:55 Aki Tuomi > <aki.tuomi at dovecot.fi <mailto:aki.tuomi at dovecot.fi>> ha scritto:

Aki Tuomi <aki.tuomi at dovecot.fi> writes: > On 24 February 2018 at 12:45 Neil Jerram < neil at ossau.homelinux.net> wrote: > > Please could you help me to understand and fix why my dovecot IMAP > performance is so bad? I've read through a lot of the > performance-related material on the website, but I don't think that any > of it could account for

Hi, This (hopefully!) might be a case of user error, as I'm new to dovecot... Alternatively it might be some confusion in an index, since I've been mucking about trying different things in my configuration files and had frequent crashes. I'm trying to sync 2 (LAN) hosts, ideally to have full automatic replication happening. They both have hybrid mbox INBOX and maildir++ folders,

Dear Dovecot and community, We run a small email service for our customers, based on two machines that are made ?redundant or clustered? by using the replication feature of Dovecot. This works well, for most emails. Sometimes the following happends: Email to our support database arrives at the inbox. Every period a cronjob looks into that mailbox and parses the information and makes a support

Very minor bug; not specifying the user mask with 'doveadm replicator replicate -f' causes a segfault: server:~# doveadm replicator replicate -f Segmentation fault server:~# doveadm replicator replicate -f '*' 123 users updated server:~# gdb /usr/bin/doveadm core.2418 GNU gdb (GDB) Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.6.1-100.el7 This GDB was configured as

After a filesystem crash dovecot isn't able to repair some of the m-Files. That's okay in general -- but I wonder why he's complaining about "wrong dsync version" if I execute "doveadm force-resync" locally: doveadm(user at mailbox.org): Warning: mdbox /mail-mailbox/mailbox.org/1846405//mdbox/storage: rebuilding indexes doveadm(user at mailbox.org): Error:

> On 24 February 2018 at 15:47 Neil Jerram <neil at ossau.homelinux.net> wrote: > > > Aki Tuomi <aki.tuomi at dovecot.fi> writes: > > > On 24 February 2018 at 12:45 Neil Jerram < neil at ossau.homelinux.net> wrote: > > > > Please could you help me to understand and fix why my dovecot IMAP > > performance is so bad? I've read

Maybe you could not delete the message instantly, but keep track of last seen UID. UIDs increase monotonically, so you can rest assured that next arriving email has larger UID. Then you can bulk delete mails that are older than one day. Aki > On October 20, 2017 at 8:01 PM Remko Lodder <remko at FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > > Hi, > > Anyone has suggestions? The situation

Hello, I'm trying to get dovecot to listen on specific interfaces. On the server itself I've got webmail going so am needing imap on 143. I do not want this on the external server interface, so I am wanting imaps port 993 external only. The configuration looks right, but Dovecot isn't showing anything listening on port 993 at all. Unrelated, my public and shared folders are not

We use a pair of replicating Dovecot servers. If a user subscribes to a folder, shared by an other user, in one replica, that does not get replicated to the other node. Subscription of regular folders below INBOX seem to replicate correctly. Is that a general bug, a known problem or do we need to enable that somehow. Here's our configuration for the concerned namespace: namespace users { ?

Hi, Anyone has suggestions? The situation also happends when I ?delete? a message from my Phone. It seems to get replicated instantly and the just deleted email is back in the mailbox again. I did remove HA Proxy support in the meantime to rule that out and I have enabled the default replication_max_conns. thanks Remko > On 13 Oct 2017, at 11:56, Remko Lodder <remko at FreeBSD.org>

Hi, replying to my own issue: The dsync crash seems to be triggered when there are emails to copy in both directions, and it's fairly clear from comments in the code that it should be releasing a read lock before trying to grab a write lock. A work-around for the crash was doing a one-way sync manually. This allowed the process to complete and my setup is now replicating properly. I guess

(I'm not subscribed, please keep me CC'd) Hi, since a few months I'm experiencing repeated dovecot crashes. I mostly see them in the logs, I haven't had any users complain, so I haven't looked closely until now. I was originally using an older version fro mDebian and hoped that a newer future version would already fix this, but I just upgraded to version 1:2.2.32-2 from