similar to: [g.danti@assyoma.it: Re: Questions about hardlinks, alternate storage and compression]

> centos 7.x is latest, so if you need help upgrade make a bug report to > centos, not waste your time here since you choiced a precompiled > problem, reporting here 7s helpfull if you use dovecot compiled with > the latest version here, this migth be a unknown bug you then have > found, but not if you use precompiled problems, then report to the > maintainers of such software

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

On November 26, 2015 3:28:22 PM Gionatan Danti <g.danti at assyoma.it> wrote: > Il 26-11-2015 15:15 John R. Dennison ha scritto: >> You are strongly encouraged to update that CentOS system. Current is >> 6.7 (released some 3 months ago) and dovecot-2.0.9-19. > > Ouch! I copied outdated information from my old post. > My current system _is_ CentOS 6.7 with dovecot

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

Hi all, I have some updates on the hard-link discussion. First, let me explain that I installed a test machine with CentOS 7.1 and dovecot/pigeonhole version 2.2.10-4 and the results where identical on what I had on CentOS 6.7 and dovecot 2.0.9-19 The bottom line is that hardlinking works only when no, or at most only one, RCPT have sieve filtering. For example: - if no RCPT has sieve

Hi all, I wonder if using a per-user sieve_before setting (ie: a relative path to user home, as ~/filter.sieve) is expected to work corretly. Full disclaimer: I am migrating an old CentOS 6.10 box with dovecot 2.0.9 and an old pigenhole version. I now want to redirect emails from old account to new account (I have a csv with old->new address pairs). My first approach using a single, big

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 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. >> >>

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 30 Nov 2015, at 10:21, Gionatan Danti <g.danti at assyoma.it> wrote: > > So, let me do a straigth question: is someone using dovecot/LMTP with hardlinking? To me, this seems a _very_ important feature, and I wonder if I am doing something wrong or if the feature (hardlink+sieve) simply does not exists. Hardlink+Sieve has never worked. The fix is a bit complicated. Here's my

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: some message-specific data was appended to the actual mail file). Here you can find the original thread:

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:

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

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.

Hi list, we all know why ZFS is not included in RHEL/CentOS distributions: its CDDL license is/seems not compatible with GPL license. I'm not a layer, and I do not have any strong opinion on the matter. However, as a sysadmin, I found ZFS to be extremely useful, especially considering BTRFS sad state. I would *really* love to have ZFS on Linux more intergrated with current CentOS. From

Hi all, I have a question regarding the "ssl_protocols" parameter. I understand that editing the 10-ssl.conf file I can set the ssl_protocols variable as required. At the same time, I can edit a single protocol file (eg: 20-pop3.conf) to set the ssl_protocols for a specific protocol/listener. I wander if (and how) I can create a different listener for another POP3 instance, for

Il 26-08-2017 01:13 WK ha scritto: > Big +1 on what was Kevin just said.? Just avoiding the problem is the > best strategy. Ok, never run Gluster with anything less than a replica2 + arbiter ;) > However, for the record,? and if you really, really want to get deep > into the weeds on the subject, then the? Gluster people have docs on > Split-Brain recovery. > >

Hi list, I would like to know if the following rsync's behavior can be changed/modified. I noticed that when rsync receive a file for which the local filesystem already has a symlinks with the same path/name, it _first_ delete the symlink, _then_ it start the transfer. I think there are two problems with this approach: - it completely ignores the content of the symlinked files, which can

Il 23-08-2017 18:14 Pavel Szalbot ha scritto: > Hi, after many VM crashes during upgrades of Gluster, losing network > connectivity on one node etc. I would advise running replica 2 with > arbiter. Hi Pavel, this is bad news :( So, in your case at least, Gluster was not stable? Something as simple as an update would let it crash? > I once even managed to break this setup (with

Hi all, as per subject, when a Windows guest using a Spice display is rebooted with a planned chkdsk, the consistency check is always skipped. It seems that the Spice display issues some "phantom" keystrokes, which are then intended by Windows as the "skip chkdsk at boot" signal. I tried to use a Spice display with no additional features (ie: USB redirection), but to no