similar to: acl and lazy_expunge plugins are incompatible?

Hello. Before going into deep testing of 2.2.16 (clean install tbd), I would like to know if someone is using succesfully both ACL and Lazy_expunge plugins. Perhaps I had a config error? Thanks, Paolo > Il 3 marzo 2015 alle 16.36 Paolo Cravero <paolo.cravero at csi.it> ha > scritto: > > > Hello list. > Following two previous unanswered requests >

Hello, first time here. I am playing with Dovecot because of its mdbox storage, SIS feature and altstorage ability. I authenticate against LDAP (passdb), but I don't fetch operational data from LDAP (mail_locations are static from config files and "user_attrs = =uid=500, =gid=500, =home=/maildata1/home/%d/%1n/%n"). On a daily basis I run "doveadm altmove -A savedbefore

This is the user DN: > cn=Klara Fall,ou=People,dc=[domainname],dc=de According to your Dovecot configuration > auth_bind_userdn = cn=%u,ou=People,dc=**[domainname]**,dc=de if you login with "klarafall" it will be expanded into cn=klarafall,ou=People,dc=[domainname],dc=de which is not the correct DN for Mrs Klara. So if you login with "Klara Fall" it should work,

I am interested in finding out your experiences with using the dbox format (especially mdbox) if you use this format. I am contemplating changing my maildir setup to mdbox but I still need to make a case for it against maildir which has become a de-facto standard and provides sort of a secure basis in case of software changes. Your input will be appreciated. -- Andreas Kasenides Senior IT

> Timo Sirainen wrote: > Our typical projects have several million user accounts. I think 100k > users is around the minimum. Interesting. So che choice for object storage is driven by the number of accounts rather than the amount of data stored? For example I am heading towards 10 TB online with "just" 10k users. It wouldn't be worth? Paolo

Hi, since migration to Dovecot 2.2 I have troubles with lazy_expunge as soon as a user shares a folder. The user the folder is shared to cannot login anymore, dovecot logs Fatal: lazy_expunge: Unknown namespace: '.EXPUNGED/' - When no folder is shared lazy_expunge is working fine, deleted mails are moved to the expunged namespace and can be recovered without any problems. - Sharing

Ok I played around a bit and activated debugging correctly (Thanks to Steffen) Now I try to log in with the user johndoe (that is his cn and his uid) and i get the following message in syslog: Mar 2 11:03:32 mailserver dovecot: auth: Debug: master in: REQUEST#0111283457025#0117428#0111#011d139b5d372d882643bc995003c615c89 Mar 2 11:03:32 mailserver dovecot: auth: Debug:

http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.2/rev/93bba97afb2a http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.2/rev/e0a17714f0c9 So all in all, you can now add to imap_logout_format: # %i - total number of bytes read from client # %o - total number of bytes sent to client # %{fetch_hdr_count} - Number of mails with mail header data sent to client # %{fetch_hdr_bytes} - Number of bytes with mail header data sent to

Andreas, > I am interested in finding out your experiences with using the dbox > format (especially mdbox) if you use this format. mdbox is THE reason why I am trying Dovecot. With mailboxes of several (tens of) GB with several k of messages I hope mdbox will speedup backups. Also SIS for attachments sounds very good, but still doesn't follow the altstorage rules (while messages go to

The mdbox-format with the altstorage-feature is quite nice and important. But we're having much more then >> 30 TB of maildata and doing an fsck on huge partitions takes too much (down-) time for our mailsystem. It would be much easier, if Dovecot would be able to use at least THREE storage-paths for his m-Files (and not just TWO like now). Having an altstorage1 and altstorage2, we

> > We have identified a bug in auth process, and are working with a fix. > It works for me in 2.2.30-2 -- Angel L. Mateo Mart?nez Secci?n de Telem?tica ?rea de Tecnolog?as de la Informaci?n y las Comunicaciones Aplicadas (ATICA) http://www.um.es/atica Tfo: 868889150 Fax: 868888337

> I do know that this little box of horrors has 200-300MB mbox INBOXes on an > ext3 filesystem formatted in 2005. I am very nervous about converting them to > Maildir at this point. Fortunately, it just involves reformatting the data and a little reconmfiguration of dovcot. If you can find the tool and disk space, it's well worth doing. Of course, when running a proverbial

Hi all, in my settup i decided to set mail_home in 10-mail.conf, and let dovecot do the hashing to a 2-level directory structure. mail_location = mdbox:~/mdbox:ALT=/altstorage/%h/mdbox mail_home = /vmail/%1Mu/%2.1Mu/%u In my userdb ist homedirectory not set and everythink works as expected, except when i use rawlog i get only logs in ~/dovecot.rawlog if home is set in userdb. In wiki

I am trying to get user authentication in a 200X AD to have domain users see the samba shares (RH ES3, samba 3.0.9-1). I can see the shares, but when I try to access any of the shares, I get prompted for a username and password and this is what shows up in the log.winbindd file ------------------- [2004/12/29 08:17:37, 1] nsswitch/winbindd_user.c:winbindd_getpwnam(161) user 'robl' does

Hey LLVM-dev, We propose to build the CSI framework to provide a comprehensive suite of compiler-inserted instrumentation hooks that dynamic-analysis tools can use to observe and investigate program runtime behavior. Traditionally, tools based on compiler instrumentation would each separately modify the compiler to insert their own instrumentation. In contrast, CSI inserts a standard

I am very glad this project reached the state where we can start the public code review. Please shoot the patches for review when ready. --kcc On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 12:14 PM, TB Schardl via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > CC'ing the mailing list for the CSI project. > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 12:01 PM, TB Schardl <neboat at mit.edu> wrote: >

Hey David, Thank you for your feedback. I'm trying to understand the model you sketched in order to compare it to CSI's current approach, but the details of your proposal are still fuzzy to me. In particular, although the model you described would avoid using LTO to elide unused hooks, it seems more complicated for both tool writers and tool users to use. Please clarify your model and

Hello List, with dovecot version 2.2.13.9, I actually have a problem using lazy_expunge and acl together. Shared/Public Folders work fine with lazy_expunge disabled. If lazy_expunge is enabled and userA got a shared folder form userB, then there is the error shown in subject. My test case to reproduce the error. doveadm mailbox list -u userA at domain --> Output Fine. doveadm acl set -u

Hey Peter and David, Thank you for your comments. As mentioned elsewhere, the current design of CSI does not rely on LTO for correctness. The tool-instrumented executable will run correctly even if the linker performs no optimization. In particular, unused instrumentation hooks are implemented by default as nop functions, which just return immediately. CSI is a system that *can use* LTO to

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 5:42 AM Matthias Braun via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Some of this overlaps with the features in XRay ( > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-April/098901.html). > > Matthias beat me to it! >From reading the RFC, it seems that some of what XRay is doing on the instrumentation side is very similar to what CSI enables. The