search for: 218116

I'm running beta7 on two machines, with maildir on NFS. I have lockd running on all machines. I've found that Dovecot is highly unstable with NFS when accessing a mailbox on more than one machine at the same time. Both dovecot machines have: mmap_disable = yes lock_method = fcntl NFS is version 3, exported from a third linux machine. All machines are running 2.6.9 kernel. Any ideas

...egards. -- +----------------------------------------------^-----------------------+ | Luis Mel?ndez Aganzo ^ Email: luism at uco.es | | Servicio de Inform?tica ^ Tlf: 34-(9)57-211022 | | ?rea de Sistemas ^ Fax: 34-(9)57-218116 | | Universidad de C?rdoba (SPAIN) ^ http://www.uco.es | +----------------------------------------------^-----------------------+

Is it possible to use Dovecot frontends in front of UWash backends? I need a proxy pool ASAP. There is not sufficient time to migrate the backends for 40,000+ users so they have to stay UW for now. I have been looking at Perdition but concerned about performance under load. Dovecot looks really promising with it's non-forking mode. I need simple dumb frontends no local mail. Other

Dear Dovecote devotees, I have been going through dovecot configuration for the first time. I am not an experienced systems administrator so I had to do a left turn to read up about PAM while doing all the configuration for my new webmail service. I found that the writing in the dovecot documentation about PAM to be rather misleading in at least one aspect. The documentation I am specifically

I've configured dovecot to authenticate against a Fedora Directory Server. The mail server on which dovecot is installed has the nss_ldap and pam_ldap packages installed, and /etc/dovecot.conf has the following two lines: auth_userdb = ldap /etc/dovecot-ldap.conf auth_passdb = pam In other words, I want dovecot to use LDAP to access the user database, but PAM for authentication. This part is

Hi, Lang. 2014-09-19 0:39 GMT+06:00 Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com>: > Hi Anton, > > I don't follow what you're asking? > > For (1): You can compile c++ files to .ll files with clang - it seems like > you've already worked that out. > > For (2): What do you mean "supported at the moment"? In the 3.5 release > MCJIT is known to be broken for