similar to: New user mailbox permission

Dear list, I recently had to delete some messages from an sdbox mailbox, for which I used the canonical "doveadm expunge" command without issues. However I got curious and, on a test mailbox, I deleted an unimportant message directly from the filesystem (rm u.650). After removing the file, the webmail continued to show it in the mail list - but no text was retrieved when I selected

Hi list, I have some questions on how rsync names the temporary files it create during a file transfer. It is my understanding that temporary files are name .<filename>.ABCDEF, where "ABCDEF" is a random 6-chars alphanumeric string. First question: it is correct to say that the random aphanumeric string is _always_ 6 chars long? Second question: it is possibile to define a

Il 2020-05-11 15:54 Aki Tuomi ha scritto: > If you manually change the mailbox contents like that, you need to run > doveadm force-resync to fix the situation. > > Aki Ok, so it means that dovecot will *not* automatically fix the index file and I need to reconstruct the index file, right? Just for completeness: will not fixing the index file (after a manual deletion) cause

Il 2020-05-11 17:41 Aki Tuomi ha scritto: > The index will be rebuilt once you try to access the mail. Hi Aki, I probably misunderstood yor previous reply. So, the index will be fixed when either: - running doveadm force-sync - accessing the mailbox (ie: via IMAP). This means that removing an email from the filesystem (ie: a u.* file) and the index cache file (dovecot.index.cache) should be

On 14/07/15 08:17, Steffen Kaiser wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Mon, 13 Jul 2015, Gionatan Danti wrote: > >> On the other hand, private (per-user) sieve file works without >> interfering with hardlinks. In a similar manner, disabling sieve also >> permits dovecot to create multiple hardlinks for a single message. >> >>

Il 09-07-2015 22:01 Rowland Penny ha scritto: > I will say it again but in slightly different words: there are no > 'remote' users, there are local Unix users and there are domain users, > local users can only connect to directories and files on the local > computer. Domain users can connect to directories and files on any > domain computer that is set up with the correct

On 30 Nov 2015, at 17:48, Gionatan Danti <g.danti at assyoma.it> wrote: > > Hi Timo, > glad to know it is in your TODO list ;) It's been for many years. > Any rough ETA on that? Right now it doesn't seem likely to be developed anytime soon. > Thanks. > > On 30/11/2015 14:23, Timo Sirainen wrote: >> On 30 Nov 2015, at 10:21, Gionatan Danti <g.danti

On 09/07/15 12:25, Reindl Harald wrote: >> In short: while my samba server is connected to the AD domain, I would >> also like to have some local (non domain) user for other tasks. >> >> It is my understanding that for a local samba user I _need_ to create >> the relative unix user (using useradd) and then use the samba-provided >> tool smbpasswd. I simply

Hi Javier, thanks for your reply. I already checked SIS and, while interesting, is not what I want, because: 1) it can be difficult to restore a single message/attachment from a backup 2) only the attachments, and not the entire messages, are deduped. Message-based hardlinks really exists for a reason. The good news is that I found _why_ they are not working: it depends from how dovecot and

Il 23-12-2019 12:04 Gionatan Danti ha scritto: > On 19/12/19 11:08, Gionatan Danti wrote: >> Hi list, >> many moons ago I asked about preserving hardlink between identical >> messages when pigeonhole (for sieve filtering) was used. >> >> The reply was that, while hardlink worked well for non-filtered >> messages, using pigeonhole broke the hardlink (ie:

Hi all, I have some questions about hardlinks, alternate storage and compression. I already scanned the list for related information and I have an idea of how things works, but I would like to have a definite answer. System spec: - CentOS 6.6 x64 - dovecot-2.0.9-8.el6_6.4.x86_64 RPM package/version - sdbox mail store 1) About hardlinks: when sending the same message to two different

On 14/07/15 12:26, Steffen Kaiser wrote: > > You asked about "newer dovecot versions", v2.2 does so. > Fair enough :) So, with v2.2+ the hardlink approach is irremediably gone, at least with LMTP (and without relying to SiS)? -- Danti Gionatan Supporto Tecnico Assyoma S.r.l. - www.assyoma.it email: g.danti at assyoma.it - info at assyoma.it GPG public key ID: FF5F32A8

Il 01-06-2017 19:42 Jeremy Allison ha scritto: > On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 03:11:53PM +0200, Gionatan Danti wrote: >> However, *no* user authentication is possible on samba shares when >> the VPN tunnel is down? >> >> Do you have any suggestions? > > I think Uri and Volker did the work on this. Uri, can you > give an update on where we stand with offline auth

> On 11/05/2020 16:45 Gionatan Danti <g.danti at assyoma.it> wrote: > > > Dear list, > I recently had to delete some messages from an sdbox mailbox, for which > I used the canonical "doveadm expunge" command without issues. > > However I got curious and, on a test mailbox, I deleted an unimportant > message directly from the filesystem (rm u.650).

Sorry for the bump... Anyone know if it is possible to have multiple protocols instances with different ssl_protocols settings? Regards. On 07/02/15 00:03, Gionatan Danti wrote: > Hi all, > anyone with some ideas? > > Thanks. > > Il 2015-02-02 23:08 Gionatan Danti ha scritto: >> Hi all, >> I have a question regarding the "ssl_protocols" parameter.

I performed a quick test and it seems that the "ssl_protocols" setting is per-IP only and shared among all listeners defined for that address. As you want this setting to be active for one specific "inet_listener" only (with port 10995 in your case), dovecot would have to permit the "ssl_protocols" directive in that scope, which it doesn?t. As a workaround I suggest

Yes, this is my observation so far. On Sep 9, 2017 13:32, "Gionatan Danti" <g.danti at assyoma.it> wrote: > Il 09-09-2017 09:09 Pavel Szalbot ha scritto: > >> Sorry, I did not start the glusterfsd on the node I was shutting >> yesterday and now killed another one during FUSE test, so it had to >> crash immediately (only one of three nodes were actually

The latter one is the one I have been referring to. And it is pretty dangerous Imho Il 31/ago/2017 01:19, <lemonnierk at ulrar.net> ha scritto: > Solved as to 3.7.12. The only bug left is when adding new bricks to > create a new replica set, now sure where we are now on that bug but > that's not a common operation (well, at least for me). > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at

Il 26-08-2017 07:38 Gionatan Danti ha scritto: > I'll surely give a look at the documentation. I have the "bad" habit > of not putting into production anything I know how to repair/cope > with. > > Thanks. Mmmm, this should read as: "I have the "bad" habit of not putting into production anything I do NOT know how to repair/cope with" Really :D

There has ben a bug associated to sharding that led to VM corruption that has been around for a long time (difficult to reproduce I understood). I have not seen reports on that for some time after the last fix, so hopefully now VM hosting is stable. 2017-08-30 3:57 GMT+02:00 Everton Brogliatto <brogliatto at gmail.com>: > Ciao Gionatan, > > I run Gluster 3.10.x (Replica 3 arbiter