similar to: Dovecot auth username mapping

Thank you for the response Axel. I will look into that. I did attempt to switch the PAM/Kerberos authentication to Dovecot LDAP authentication, but now performance is unbelievably slow. For example, with PAM/Kerberos, a user can log into webmail and have all of their emails/folders showing almost immediately. When using Dovecot LDAP, it takes literally 8-10 seconds to see the same thing. I

Peter, Yes that is a possibility. I will try disabling PAM (or switching the auth order) and see if that makes a difference. Thanks for the suggestion! ~ Laz Peterson Paravis, LLC Ph: 951.319.3240 x201 > On Jul 1, 2015, at 11:34 PM, Peter Chiochetti <pch at myzel.net> wrote: > > Am 2015-07-02 um 01:41 schrieb Laz C. Peterson: >> >> I did attempt to switch the

It?s actually unbelievable how much slower LDAP auth is than PAM. Does anyone have any suggestions how I can improve Dovecot LDAP auth? I have tried caching authentications and that doesn?t help either. ~ Laz Peterson Paravis, LLC Ph: 951.319.3240 x201 > On Jul 1, 2015, at 4:41 PM, Laz C. Peterson <laz at paravis.net> wrote: > > Thank you for the response Axel. I will look

Round-robin DNS last I checked can be fraught with issues. While doing something else I came up with this idea: Clients --> Load Balancer(HAProxy) --> Dovecot Proxy(DP) --> Dovecot Director(DD) --> MS1 / MS2. When DP checks say user100 it'll find a host=DD-POD1 that returns two IPs, those of the two DD that sit in front of POD1. This DD pair is the only pair in the ring and

> Le 1 juil. 2015 ? 04:38, Laz C. Peterson > a ?crit : > > I have an interesting case here ? > > Virtual mailboxes, domain/username/aliases stored in MySQL, authentication done using PAM. PAM authenticates through Kerberos, which are internal realms and not the email domains ? for example, my username would be laz at PARAVIS.LOCAL <mailto:laz at PARAVIS.LOCAL> and my

Hello there, Everything was working fine on Dovecot 2.2.10 (on CentOS 7), but after updating to version 2.2.36, our director servers are not able to proxy LMTP. We are sending mail from exim to the local Dovecot LMTP socket, which then used to send it to our internal mail servers on port 24. Besides the update, nothing has changed in the config files. The configuration has been working great

Hi there Dovecot community -- I'll try to make this short. Here's the setup ? Ubuntu 12.04, Postfix, Dovecot, along with Amavis/Clamd/Spamassassin. Postfix is currently receiving emails for virtual users in multiple domains, all of which are authenticating through Winbind to Windows AD servers. The users log in to the POP/IMAP/SMTP services using the format user at domain.corp (the

I think RR DNS is the only viable solution under these circumstances. If you can cope with the fact that failovers won't be seamless, I don't think there's anything wrong with that though. On 07/21/2015 11:54 AM, Laz C. Peterson wrote: > The consensus seems to say no to RR DNS ? I am going to take that into serious consideration. > > With this proxy setup you describe, what

I'm trying to determine which dovecot components to use and how to order them in the network path from client to mail store. If I have say 1,000 users, all stored in MySQL (or LDAP) and have 4 mail stores, configured into 2, 2 node pods. MS1 and MS2 are pod1 and are configured with replication (dsync) and host users 0-500. MS3 and MS4 are pod2 and are configured with replication between

Hello Sami, yes, see below. We run Dovecot at a different versions, mainly 2.2.10 (CentOS), 2.2.22 (Ubuntu) and now 2.2.36 (CentOS). ?The issue is weird, because it only happened after the update from 2.2.10->36. ?Just to understand it would be great. I'm actually checking out the configs now ... Our SQL userdb does not specify port. ?So I'm guessing this may be to blame? (This was

The consensus seems to say no to RR DNS ? I am going to take that into serious consideration. With this proxy setup you describe, what would happen if HAProxy or Dovecot Proxy were to fail? I think there is no problem with many moving parts, as long as there is a backup plan in case something goes awry. My goal is slightly different, as I want to have HA available across datacenters without

> On 31 Dec 2018, at 0.43, Laz C. Peterson <laz at paravis.net> wrote: > > Hello there, > > Everything was working fine on Dovecot 2.2.10 (on CentOS 7), but after updating to version 2.2.36, our director servers are not able to proxy LMTP. > > We are sending mail from exim to the local Dovecot LMTP socket, which then used to send it to our internal mail servers on

On Tue, 2016-06-07 at 11:45 -0500, Edgar Pettijohn wrote: > You have Pam as your passdb driver. Yes, because I have to. How else would I get Dovecot to authenticate users against my FreeIPA server? -- Ranbir -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed

Hello I have an Apple computer user who has great problems using IMAP and Dovecot. Some same messages seems to stay in two or more folders and are impossible to erase from the Apple mail client Anyone has that kind of troubles ? Thanks

> On 27 Jan 2016, at 21:55, Axel Luttgens <axel.luttgens at skynet.be> wrote: > > Hello Haravikk, > > Perhaps could you try to devise an exception based on one (or more) "remote" section(s), as in: > > remote ip.of.webmail.server { > ssl_verify_client_cert = no > [other settings, if needed] > } > > But I guess you would need to combine

Hi,is there a way to log which MUA is being used from an user? # dovecot --version2.0.9 Thank you

I?m trying to do this too. But the goal would be simply for automatic failover to the other datacenter. Everything is working if the server?s unique hostname is entered, but I want to do something like round robin DNS that mail clients will automatically attempt to connect to the other IP if they cannot get to the first address. Unfortunately mail applications don?t really do this like web

I did a mistake (shame on me). While migrating accounts on a new server, I didn't pay attention to a detail: sieve_max_actions, that I set to a low value for my testings, but then forgot to raise before the migration. As a result, several redirect-only accounts have now their inbox filled with messages that should have been redirected to "real people", then discarded. Would there

My base concern may be illustrated with the help of that simple telnet session: # telnet 127.0.0.1 imap Trying 127.0.0.1... Connected to localhost. Escape character is '^]'. * OK [CAPABILITY IMAP4rev1 LITERAL+ SASL-IR LOGIN-REFERRALS ID ENABLE AUTH=PLAIN] Dovecot ready. a1 login testuser ****** a1 OK [CAPABILITY IMAP4rev1 LITERAL+ SASL-IR LOGIN-REFERRALS ID ENABLE SORT

I?m using dovecot to provide encrypted IMAP e-mail support for remote clients and it?s working great. However, I also need to set up a webmail front-end (Roundcube), which I?m hoping to have use unencrypted IMAP on port 143 (as only port 993 is available externally). The problem I?m running into is that I want to require client certificate authentication on port 993, but dovecot is apparently