similar to: wish now I'd not upgraded...

System: Debian 5.0.4 Lenny Kernel: custom 2.6.31.1 built from kernel.org source Dovecot: 1.0.15-2.3+lenny1 Available: 1.2.9-1~bpo50+1 Mailbox format: mbox Storage location: /home/$user/mail/ on ext2 fs Delivery: Postfix 2.5.5 local to /var/mail/$user As you can see Debian has a backport package of Dovecot 1.2.9 available to Lenny users, and it appears it is a big jump forward in terms of

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

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,

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.

i'm facing a pretty hard to debug problem when trying to use dovecot LDA (deliver) from postfix. After having all configured, mail deliver fails. This is from my maillog: Feb 12 21:27:54 correio postfix/pipe[12484]: 930F9F6105: to=<solutti at domain.com.br>, relay=dovecot, delay=0.21, delays=0.03/0.01/0/0.18, dsn=4.3.0, status=SOFTBOUNCE (Command died with signal 11:

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

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,

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:

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?

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 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()

Hi, I have error with dovecot 1.2.10 + compress on deliver patch and zlib plugin. logfile sample: [...] mail.err: Feb 16 14:22:25 dovecot: IMAP(hidden at domain.com): zlib_istream.seek() failed: Invalid argument mail.err: Feb 16 14:22:25 dovecot: IMAP(hidden at domain.com): FETCH for mailbox Meursault UID 101 failed to read message input: Invalid argument mail.err: Feb 16 14:22:26 dovecot:

Hello! I have question about Debian package management with puppet. I''m wondering is there sane way to make puppet respects packages pinning? i.e., if I have several repos for one package, let''s say it is "nginx" which can be found in lenny & lenny-backports repos. I''ve created pinning file like: Package: nginx Pin: release a=lenny-backports Pin-Priority:

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

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

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

Hello. I plan to use OCFS2 + DRBD for email server. Problem: I use "seeker" for testing http://www.linuxinsight.com/how_fast_is_your_disk.html And get this: Results: 65 seeks/second, 15.23 ms random access time Then I do rm of many files - it fals to 10 seeks/second and performance is terrible. What can I do to increase it? What`s wrong? Below is many info. What we have: Debian

Hi, i think i've the same problem as described here: http://www.dovecot.org/list/dovecot/2009-June/040687.html when opening a folder without an index (?) and bzip-compressed files i get following error message: 2010-02-03T14:12:10.026452+01:00 server dovecot: IMAP(user): gzread() failed: PARAM_ERROR 2010-02-03T14:12:10.026477+01:00 server dovecot: IMAP(user): FETCH for mailbox folder