search for: colchetes

On 11.05.2016 22:45, Daniel van Ham Colchete wrote: > I can confirm that this bug also happens on the latest version available: > > root at dovecot:/# dovecot --version > 2.2.devel (ebf2e93) > root at dovecot:/# dpkg -l|grep dovecot > ii dovecot-core 2:2.2.24-1~auto+23 amd64 > secure POP3/IMAP server - core files > ii dovecot-dbg

I would like to report a bug we are seeing on an new deployment here: Linux: Debian Jessie, inside a Docker container Dovecot version: 2.2.23 (806d709) / 2.2.23-1~bpo8+1 doveconf -n: http://pastebin.com/2xA2xuRw Filesystem: CephFS - Jewel After migrating our users from our old server to our new one we can't access a few mailboxes. Backtrace follows: root at dovecot:/# gdb --args

Hello everyone! I would like to report a bug here. We are using dovecot's sdbox with alternate storage here. From time to time my SSD partition gets full and I always find users with lots of e-mails stuck there, and altmove just won't move them. It moves most of the e-mails correctly, but a few was getting stuck everyday. So, I think I have found the problem! When a user moves the

On 15 May 2015, at 02:50, Daniel van Ham Colchete <daniel.colchete at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello everyone! > > I would like to report a bug here. We are using dovecot's sdbox with > alternate storage here. From time to time my SSD partition gets full and I > always find users with lots of e-mails stuck there, and altmove just won't > move them. It moves most

Hi, we start to run out of diskspace soon as our users start to keep mails for longer time periods. That's fine, but space consuming. The maildirs are about 1 TB in total, and not long ago we enabled zlib which is very nice. Now I have some thoughts about the next steps: a) Migrating the whole system to a new server with more storage? b) Install a virtual server for the mailsystem and an

...e fazer a primeira parte da quest?o da seguinte maneira: Para fazer com que a fun??o order execute o mesmo objetivo que a fun??o sort, faz-se o seguinte: x[order(x)] *Se plotarmos este comando no R realmente o objetivo da primeira pate da quest?o ? cumprido, por?m n?o entendi o pq desses dois colchetes ? ** E como fazer com que a fun??o sort realize o objetivo da fun??o order mas sem utilizar o order ?? Agrade?o muito mesmo se puderem me ajudar na quest?o 1 e nas quest?es acima (*) e (**) -- View this message in context: http://r.789695.n4.nabble.com/How-emulate-the-function-order-without-...

Hi all, I've been researching ways to replicate mail across multiple mailstores and have a few questions. Synching 2 mailstores (M1 & M2) via dsync works fine. I want to add a 3rd and 4th (M3 & M4) server to also be synced. Multi-sync (>2 servers): 1) How do I tell M1 and/or M2 to also sync to M3 and/or M4? Selective sync: 2) How do I sync specific domains to specific

Hello everyone! About three years ago we migrated from Courier do Dovecot using the procedure at http://wiki2.dovecot.org/Migration/Courier. So we have a namespace prefix os "INBOX.". We are trying to implement the SOGo collaboration with Exchange ActiveSync integration with Android Lollipop devices. So, in this exact configuration (namespace prefix + ActiveSync + Android Lollipop)

hi, trying to get fast searches on roundcube. would like if it could work like gmail (using multiple keywords to perform search) if not wrong, i think this is called fuzzy search(i do have dovecot_fts running)? please advise if anyone has managed to get this? thanks kevin

B, I really like the idea of N-way replication. Pairs are ugly, they cost double! Even if you have 20 servers, when one goes down all that IO traffic goes to just one. So, what I did here was a (kind of) DHT-based n-way replication, where the node for the second copy is independent of where the first copy is. For that you will have to use the mail_replica inside your userdb. Here I'm using

Daniel, On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 09:26:32AM -0300, Daniel van Ham Colchete wrote: > B, > I really like the idea of N-way replication. Pairs are ugly, they cost double! Even if you have 20 servers, when one goes down all that IO traffic goes to just one. > So, what I did here was a (kind of) DHT-based n-way replication, where the node for the second copy is independent of where