similar to: v2.0.11 released

On Sat, March 17, 2007 10:51 pm, Timo Sirainen <tss at iki.fi> said: > Oh, and as for when the rewrite is in CVS, I'm not really sure. I'm > still wondering if I should put it there soon and make the release after > v1.0 be v2.0, or if I should first stabilize the current new CVS HEAD > features (which shouldn't take too long), do a v1.2 release and only > then

I forked the wiki to http://wiki1.dovecot.org/ is the old docs for v1.x http://wiki2.dovecot.org/ is the new docs for v2.0 For now wiki.dovecot.org points to wiki1, but once v2.0 is released I'll change it to point to wiki2. I symlinked the user directory, so users should stay synced between the wikis. The main reason for wiki2 is to be able to describe Dovecot v2.0's actual behavior

If anyone's interested, I updated my master/config rewrite to latest Dovecot v1.1 tree and added it to hg: http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-master-rewrite/ It probably doesn't work, but with the exception of plugins it compiles anyway. :) I'm thinking that maybe after v1.1.0 I could continue with the rewrite and create v2.0 after all instead of v1.2. Just look at how much cleaner

Hello... Currently in the process of upgrading Samba v2.0.10 to Samba v3.0.x, while conducting some minimal testing, it turns-out that Samba v3.0.x is performing slower than Samba v2.0.10. Set-ups: A. Samba v3.0.x --> Same PC client is accessing the samba share running on Red Hat 4.5 (64bit, HP DL380) which in turn has an NFS mount coming from another SAN attached Red Hat 4.5 (64bit, HP

v1.1.0 is finally getting closer, so it's time to start planning what happens after it. Below is a list of some of the larger features I'm planning on implementing. I'm not yet sure in which order, so I think it's time to ask again what features companies would be willing to pay for? Sponsoring Dovecot development gets you: - listed in Credits in www.dovecot.org - listed in

Hi... Same problem here, running on CentOS 5.* and 4.5. It was solved by installing the package lockdev. Then you must restart the machine. And problem fixed. ashis.v.purbhoo wrote: > > > Hello... > > Currently in the process of upgrading Samba v2.0.10 to Samba v3.0.x, while > conducting some minimal testing, it turns-out that Samba v3.0.x is > performing slower

My understanding of the man page description of --exclude vs. --include is that the list of these is kept in order, and file names are searched against these parameters in that order for the first that matches and that one makes the decision. It doesn't seem to be working exactly as expected. But there is a factor involved that's making it unclear, which is whether or not *'s should

Webmail.us will be sponsoring my Dovecot development for this summer. Other companies are also welcome to participate in the costs. Participation gets you: - listed in Credits in www.dovecot.org - listed in AUTHORS file - you can tell me how you want to use the feature and I'll make sure that it supports it (within reasonable limits) For already implemented v1.1 features, see

In v1.0 .. v1.1 deliver was writing incoming >128k mail to /tmp file (to avoid reading it all into memory). In v1.2 I moved it to user's home directory. This slowed deliveries for NFS users. Also people with filesystem quota had trouble since now user required twice as much available quota to save a message. The FS quota problem was "solved" by having quota-fs plugin change the

Hello, While updating the ManageSieve implementation to the latest draft specification I noticed a major omission in the way script names are handled. Essentially, script names are directly appended to the sieve storage directory path and suffixed with '.sieve'. This does not take the use of '../' in script names into account. Therefore, clever virtual users that know the

Hello, While updating the ManageSieve implementation to the latest draft specification I noticed a major omission in the way script names are handled. Essentially, script names are directly appended to the sieve storage directory path and suffixed with '.sieve'. This does not take the use of '../' in script names into account. Therefore, clever virtual users that know the

I am currently running v1.1.20 and was wondering if there is any compelling reason to upgrade to v1.2 or v2.0? For example is there any security updates in v1.2 or v2.0 that aren't included in v1.1.20? The other major thing I would be interested in knowing is there any speed enhancements in the newer versions? I am using basic PAM Auth and Maildir mailboxes on a Linux box. Let me know

http://dovecot.org/releases/2.0/dovecot-2.0.12.tar.gz http://dovecot.org/releases/2.0/dovecot-2.0.12.tar.gz.sig Many small fixes, plus some more noticeable: + doveadm: Added "move" command for moving mails between mailboxes. + virtual: Added support for "+mailbox" entries that clear \Recent flag from messages (default is to preserve them). - dbox: Fixes to handling

http://dovecot.org/releases/2.0/dovecot-2.0.12.tar.gz http://dovecot.org/releases/2.0/dovecot-2.0.12.tar.gz.sig Many small fixes, plus some more noticeable: + doveadm: Added "move" command for moving mails between mailboxes. + virtual: Added support for "+mailbox" entries that clear \Recent flag from messages (default is to preserve them). - dbox: Fixes to handling

v1.1 plans have changed a bit. I'll release v1.1.alpha1 soon and hope to have a stable v1.1 in a month or two. The rest of the features that didn't make it into v1.1 will go to v1.2. I'll write more about this when v1.1 alpha is released. I also did a bit of benchmarking. v1.1's performance improvements are looking pretty great, it seems to be twice as fast as v1.0. v1.0:

http://dovecot.org/releases/1.2/beta/dovecot-1.2.beta4.tar.gz http://dovecot.org/releases/1.2/beta/dovecot-1.2.beta4.tar.gz.sig This release fixes a memory corruption bug related to MODSEQ handling in earlier v1.2 releases. Memory corruption means that it's a security bug and possibly exploitable. MODSEQ code is new in v1.2, so v1.1 and older releases are not affected. Other than that, there

http://dovecot.org/releases/1.2/beta/dovecot-1.2.beta4.tar.gz http://dovecot.org/releases/1.2/beta/dovecot-1.2.beta4.tar.gz.sig This release fixes a memory corruption bug related to MODSEQ handling in earlier v1.2 releases. Memory corruption means that it's a security bug and possibly exploitable. MODSEQ code is new in v1.2, so v1.1 and older releases are not affected. Other than that, there

Hi Timo, I've just tried to convert my v1.2 configuration to a v2.0 configuration. Below a few obsolete warnings, among others "mail_executable has been replaced by service { executable }", was an interesting error: "doveconf: Error: duplicate listener: 198:" The broken parts of the converted configuration: # 2.0.beta4 (84ffb38839b9): /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf # OS: Linux

Hello Dovecot users, This is a simultaneous release of new versions of Sieve-related software for Dovecot v1.1 and v1.2. Only the Sieve implementation itself has seen significant development. The ManageSieve packages only have small fixes and the ManageSieve patches are updated as usual to match the new Dovecot releases. Changelog Sieve v0.1.5: * Ported the implementation of the Sieve

Hello Dovecot users, This is a simultaneous release of new versions of Sieve-related software for Dovecot v1.1 and v1.2. Only the Sieve implementation itself has seen significant development. The ManageSieve packages only have small fixes and the ManageSieve patches are updated as usual to match the new Dovecot releases. Changelog Sieve v0.1.5: * Ported the implementation of the Sieve