search for: hoeppner

Taking a survey. 1. How many of you have a remote site hot backup Dovecot IMAP server? 2. How are you replicating mailbox data to the hot backup system? A. rsync B. DRBD+GFS2 C. Other Thanks. -- Stan

With 1.2.11 and mbox storage, the delay time in pulling new mail headers to the client from imap folders seems to be directly proportional to mailbox size, regardless of the number of new messages. At present, if the mailbox is large, pulling new headers is rather painfully slow. Is this expected behavior? Especially given that the client already has all the "old" mails in the folder

Greetings everyone, I'm new to the list as of today. I just installed Dovecot a couple of days ago for the first time, Debian Lenny Dovecot v1.0.15-2.3. So far I'm pretty impressed. I'm using mbox format with Dovecot auto-deciding to place mail in user home directories, which is great. It works very well with the Win32 Thunderbird 3 client over a small basic 100FDX switched net.

Upgraded from Debian Dovecot 1.0.15 to Debian Dovecot 1.2.10-1~bpo50+1. I use Postfix local delivery to and Dovecot mbox. As per upgrade directions, I stopped dovecot processes and deleted all dovecot.index.cache files in /home/%user/mail/.imap. Performed upgrade to 1.2.10-1~bpo50+1. Modified new dovecot.conf for my environment. Started dovecot. Problem: Instantly noticed in TB 3.0.1 Win32

I have a friend who is preparing to set up a small Postfix/Dovecot mail system. There are only approximately 25 users. He wants to use Berkeley DB in a similar fashion to the way Postfix does. I told him I do not believe Dovecot supports that. I could not find any documentation relating to it. 1) Does Dovecot support Berkeley DB? 2) Are their any plans to incorporate that feature into Dovecot?

Hi!, I want to use single sign on from Windows with Thunderbird or Outlook using NTLM. Which should be placed in the configuration file for passdb?. Currently I have: passdb { driver = pam } But it generates the following error when trying to check mail: dovecot: auth: pam (pepe, 190 108 101 120): unknown user If I remove imap passdb just does not work and I add at the end of this mail the

Per the instructions here http://wiki.dovecot.org/LDA and here http://wiki.dovecot.org/LDA/Postfix I set postmaster_address = postmaster at hardwarefreak.com in /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf and mailbox_command = /usr/lib/dovecot/deliver in /etc/postfix/main.cf When I restart dovecot I get this: [07:17:00][root at greer]/etc/dovecot$ /etc/init.d/dovecot restart Restarting IMAP/POP3 mail server:

Hi all, We've just provisioned a new cluster of dovecot nodes running Centos and Dovecot 1.0.15 (we needed to match the original configuration, we're upgrading to 1.2 next week!). The nodes are currently equally allocated (50/50 split) to IMAP and POP3, with the intention to move them into a single cluster hosting both services in the next month. All the servers are of identical

Hello everyone, Quoting from Samba Team Blog #2 (25 Sept 2009): "Volker showed how to get more than 700MB/sec from Samba using smbclient and a modern Samba server, which shows what you can really do when you understand the protocol thoroughly and don't feel you have to invent a new one (SMB2 :-)." Would it be possible to get a complete accounting of how this was achieved? Thanks,

Did you mislead me Timo? You said search in 1.1+ is faster than 1.0. I'm seeing approximately 20x *slower* search times in 1.2.10. Via Thunderbird, a full body search of my 11,000+ message IMAP folder hosted by 1.0.15 used to take less than 10 seconds. Since upgrading to 1.2.10 the search is taking over 3 minutes, the imap process servicing the client pegging one CPU at 100% for the

> From: Stan Hoeppner <stan at hardwarefreak.com> > Subject: Re: [Dovecot] SSD drives are really fast running Dovecot > > > Yes. Go with a cluster filesystem such as OCFS or GFS2 and an inexpensive SAN > storage unit that supports mixed SSD and spinning storage such as the Nexsan > SATAB...

The parameters listed for nfs installations (mmap_disable, doctlock_use_excl, mail_nfs_storage, mail_nfs_index) - are they necessary for data integrity, and/or do they compensate for NFS latency and improve performance? My understanding is the indexes are a critical part of a dbox storage, but on the other hand having local indexes is a major performance consideration. Is maildir a

With 1.0.15 my configuration I a single dovecot-auth process, which is what I want now. Since upgrading to 1.2.10 I have two such processes: root 16992 16990 0 Feb15 ? 00:00:00 dovecot-auth root 16997 16990 0 Feb15 ? 00:00:00 dovecot-auth -w I can't seem to tweak dovecot.conf to get this down to one auth process again. I've tried setting each of these below to 0,

Hi! Well, I thought this was easy, but for some reason it won''t work... Here is what I want to do: I am working on an API to a large database. The basic mapping is done, but I want to implement some convenience methods that take information for one object and does some calculations with it. The result should be accessible as attribute. So in a simple example: We have an object that

I'm considering setting up my own mailserver with Dovecot 2.0 (as soon as it's out) and SSD. I'm debating whether it's worth it or not. I have been running a mailserver with the Dovecot 1.1 train for a couple of years and it's been flawless and amazing. I'm thinking about using either FreeBSD 8.1 w/ZFS or OpenBSD 4.8-beta on a 64 GB or 80 GB SSD (Corsair or Intel) using

I've Google'd to exhaustion and can't seem to find an answer to my problem. I'm not sure if the problem is TBird 3 or my Dovecot setup. The basic problem is that when I launch TBird and it grabs messages upon startup, it takes forever to supposedly pull them down. Once it's got them they sort relatively quickly into the proper IMAP (dovecot) folders. I don't use sieve

Hi folks :-) situation: debian stable (samba version 2:3.2.5-4lenny9) from clients by ftp the transfer of huge file is about 10/11Mb/s (with an ethernet 10/100) by samba came 5/6Mb/s is it correct? In smb.conf I don't have any "strange"options: thanks Pol domain master = yes preferred master = yes os level = 65 workgroup = WORKGROUP netbios name = name Server String = name

I went to the site to subscribe again and ended up watching some of Jeremy's Google interviews. I particularly enjoyed the interview with James and the bow tie lesson at the end. :) So anyway, I recently upgraded my home network to end-to-end GbE. My clients are Windows XP SP3 w/hot fixes, and my Samba server is 3.5.6 atop vanilla kernel.org Linux 3.2.6 and Debian 6.0.6. With FDX fast

I would not have expected this upon implementing sieve. And I really need to get around this limitation. LDA has no problem writing to these large mbox files. Why does sieve have a problem with them? This is very odd. May 10 17:45:04 greer dovecot: deliver(stan): write() failed with mbox file /home/stan/mail/1-Debian-Users: File too large May 10 17:45:04 greer dovecot: deliver(stan): write()

Great information, thank you. Could you remark on GPFS services hosting mail storage over a WAN between two geographically separated data centers? ----- Reply message ----- From: "Jan-Frode Myklebust" <janfrode at tanso.net> To: "Stan Hoeppner" <stan at hardwarefreak.com> Cc: "Timo Sirainen" <tss at iki.fi>, <dovecot at dovecot.org> Subject: [Dovecot] GPFS for mail-storage (Was: Re: Compressing existing maildirs) Date: Tue, Jan 3, 2012 2:14 am On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 01:54:32AM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrot...