similar to: Problem with IMAP-Proxy and M$ Exchange-Server

Hi list! Finally I got the LDAP-Authentication work (it was a problem of the OU-Path... :( ). Now I can authenticate the user against the AD and forwarding the IMAP-Connection to the Exchange Server. Wow! My next problem: we have TWO ADs and TWO Exchange-Servers. The first AD has the users for the first Exchange, and the second AD for the second Exchange. I defined two files so:

Hi list! I'm trying to configure Dovecot 2.2.18 to act as proxy. Dovecot has to authentificate the users against an LDAP-Server (AD) and then act as IMAP-Proxy to an Exchange Server. Now the problem is, that we have TWO Exchange servers (and two ADs, too). How can I say to Dovecot that it has to search for the user in the first AD (and if found proxy to the first Exchange server) and if

Hello, I try to setup a IMAP proxy for my old Exchange server. Running Dovecot v2.x on Centos 7. So far I follow http://wiki2.dovecot.org/HowTo/ImapcProxy and it seem to work. The only but major thing is with this setup - the communication between proxy and backend is not encrypted. :( To fix this, I changed the config and add: imapc_ssl=imaps imapc_port=993 but it doesnt work, because of

> On 29 Jun 2018, at 09:42, Luca Bertoncello <lucabert at lucabert.de> wrote: > > Hi list! > > I have an account (let's say info at mydomain.com) that should be read from more people. > These people does NOT have an account on the server. > Currently info at mydomain.com is a forward to their addresses, but of course this solution has a huge problem: if info@

You will face additional problems with this approach, the first user who reads a message will mark it as read for consecutive users. It's better to make a public mailbox for that but that involves more complex setup And dovecot is not so admin friendly on this matter from my experience so far. George On Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 10:59 Luca Bertoncello <lucabert at lucabert.de> wrote: >

In all cases you need an account On Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 11:15 Luca Bertoncello <lucabert at lucabert.de> wrote: > Zitat von Aki Tuomi <aki.tuomi at dovecot.fi>: > > Hello Aki, > > > Or you can use shared mailboxes... > > https://wiki.dovecot.org/SharedMailboxes/Shared > > Understand I right, that in this case, I __NEED__ all users to have an > account

We're proxying IMAP to an Exchange server. One of my colleagues is getting this when trying to save a message as "Draft" OR as "Sent items": Aug 25 13:45:41 mproxy dovecot: imap(froemmel): Error: imapc(exchange-imap.charite.de:993): Command '7 APPEND "Entw&APw-rfe" (\Draft) {232572}' timed out, disconnecting Aug 25 13:45:41 mproxy dovecot:

Zitat von Aki Tuomi <aki.tuomi at dovecot.fi>: Hello Aki, > Or you can use shared mailboxes... > https://wiki.dovecot.org/SharedMailboxes/Shared Understand I right, that in this case, I __NEED__ all users to have an account on the server? Thanks Luca Bertoncello (lucabert at lucabert.de)

Zitat von Remko Lodder <remko at freebsd.org>: Hi Remko, > Emails can only be read if they are authenticated / authorized in > someway to access the store. That means you might need to share the > info@ credentials with the other > people so that they can read it over imap or webmail etc. That is self-evident and it is not a problem. I can't understand what you

On 29.06.2018 10:53, Luca Bertoncello wrote: > Zitat von Remko Lodder <remko at freebsd.org>: > > Hi Remko, > >> Emails can only be read if they are authenticated / authorized in >> someway to access the store. That means you might need to share the >> info@ credentials with the other >> people so that they can read it over imap or webmail etc. > >

Zitat von Sec Adm <secadm2007 at gmail.com>: > In all cases you need an account I mean: if I just want to have info@ on the Server and all users accessing it via IMAP, I just need __ONE__ account. If I want to use a shared mailbox, __ALL USERS__ need an account on the server. Is it correct? Thanks Luca Bertoncello (lucabert at lucabert.de)

Zitat von Luca Bertoncello <lucabert at lucabert.de>: > I removed the double browseable, but the situation didn't change... > > But I have notice something stranger: the problem just happen with two users > in the "Domain Admins"-group. > With another user, not in this group, new created files and directories have > the right owner... Well, I noticed right

> Am 13.06.2020 um 13:36 schrieb Luca Bertoncello <lucabert at lucabert.de>: > > Am 13.06.2020 09:30, schrieb Luca Bertoncello: > > Hi again (again) > > I noticed right now another strange detail... > I made a call using my mobile phone (connected to the Asterisk). The quality was top... > Maybe is the problem in a codec used from our phones at homes? > Could

Hello, if you need clampmss then it is highly probable there is a PMTU discovery problem. The clampmss does not work for UDP. I probably counted the size incorrectly. So you are able to ping with size 1464 and not with 1466. How about trying same ping sizes from the internet towards your site? I mean trying to ping from sites with higher MTU than yours without lower MTU links in the path. You

Hi list! I have an account (let's say info at mydomain.com) that should be read from more people. These people does NOT have an account on the server. Currently info at mydomain.com is a forward to their addresses, but of course this solution has a huge problem: if info@ receives spam that the server does not recognize, the server forwards spam... Now I want to solve this problem and I

Patrick Laimbock <patrick at laimbock.com> schrieb: > On 12/30/15 12:24, Luca Bertoncello wrote: > > Ishfaq Malik <ish at pack-net.co.uk> schrieb: > > > >> Do you have a link to the user guide for your exact phone model? > > > > Unfortunately not... > > I have a Thomson ST2022, but I can just find in Internet manual for the > > ST2030...

Hello, this is a correct response: >From 62.156.246.57 (62.156.246.57) icmp_seq=1 Frag needed and DF set (mtu = 1492) So PMTU discovery is working. No problem here. You got correct message to lower the packet size from 62.156.246.57. This is probably the last hop before your site. Marek 2020-06-23 9:40 GMT+02:00, Luca Bertoncello <lucabert at lucabert.de>: > Am 23.06.2020 09:28,

If you allow anonymous search on AD maybe you can try to set auth_bind = no . a. On 22/06/15 17:19, Luca Bertoncello wrote: > Hi again > > I'm trying to authenticate a user against an LDAP Server (well, our > AD, but it can LDAP). > > This is my configuration: > > hosts = my.server.local > auth_bind = yes > ldap_version = 3 > base =

Zitat von A J Stiles <asterisk_list at earthshod.co.uk>: > On Monday 06 Jul 2015, Luca Bertoncello wrote: >> Well, but for voice quality, which codec is better? >> alaw or gsm? > > A-law is better for voice quality (sorry, thought my original > explanation was > obvious). But note that if the destination is a mobile phone, GSM will be > used anyway, at

Zitat von A J Stiles <asterisk_list at earthshod.co.uk>: Hi, > GSM is the native codec used for calls to mobile phones; it uses lossy > compression to achieve a low bit rate. > > A-law is the native codec used by physical exchanges on the land line network > (PSTN and ISDN). It is non-lossy. It works by arranging the "steps" closer > together near the zero