similar to: Compiling Dovecot on Solaris 10

I would also check where the "... is not portable!" messaage is generated. If it's done by the configure script, you can look at the test to give you a hint as to why this message was generated. For my setup, I did much the same as you but didn't have to set the SSL_CFLAGS, SSL_LIBS environment variables, nor did I set the --with-ssldir configure option (although your setup may

Jerry Kemp <dovecot at oryx.us> wrote: > same ENV variable setup and configure statement as originally used, but again, :( > ended up failing here: > .......................................................................... > libtool: link: gcc -std=gnu99 -g -O2 -Wall -W -Wmissing-prototypes > -Wmissing-declarations -Wpointer-arith -Wchar-subscripts -Wformat=2 >

Looking further into this segfault at settings-parser.c:setting_copy():1519 *dest_size = *src_size; *src_size points to type size_t (typedef unsigned long), a 4-byte aligned value consistent with a 32-bit build. This is mismatched with declared type (gdb) whatis src_size type = const uoff_t * (gdb) whatis uoff_t type = unsigned long long (gdb) p sizeof(uoff_t) $1 = 8 resulting

Ah, okay, I see. submission_max_mail_size should be defined as uoff_t instead of size_t in struct submission_settings and struct submission_settings. > On 20 Jul 2019, at 1.47, Joseph Tam via dovecot <dovecot at dovecot.org> wrote: > > > Looking further into this segfault at > > settings-parser.c:setting_copy():1519 > *dest_size = *src_size; > > *src_size

Pascal Volk writes: >> Cut&pasted off the terminal man page output. Looking into >> man1/doveadm-move.1, I see >> >> .B doveadm move \-u jane Archive/2011/09 mailbox INBOX BEFORE \(rs >> .B 2011-10-01 SINCE 01-Sep-2011 >> >> so it's a problem with my nroff, not dovecot's man pages. (Hmm, it >> happens with groff too -- it appears

Hopefully, there is some fix for issue 3 which is beyond my skill to fix. Issue 1) Need recent gcc version Building Dovecot versions <=2.2.x using gcc 3.4.4 worked, but this gcc version fails to build 2.3.x properly: symptoms include compile failures and executable crashes that depended on the amount of optimization used, which is usually a sign of compiler bugs. (It could also be

Aki Tuomi <aki.tuomi at dovecot.fi> writes: > &gt; I simulated your compile arguments as best as I could, and compared the libtool > &gt; command in my compile logs with your's. > &gt; > &gt; (mine) > &gt; Mine: -lssl -lcrypto -lrt -lnsl -lsocket -lsendfile > &gt; > &gt; (your's) > &gt; -lcrypto -lrt -lnsl -lsocket

> On December 5, 2016 at 9:55 PM Joseph Tam <jtam.home at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Timo announced: > > > https://dovecot.org/releases/2.2/dovecot-2.2.27.tar.gz > > https://dovecot.org/releases/2.2/dovecot-2.2.27.tar.gz.sig > > > > Note that the download URLs are now https with a certificate from Let's Encrypt. > > wget complained

Timo announced: > https://dovecot.org/releases/2.2/dovecot-2.2.27.tar.gz > https://dovecot.org/releases/2.2/dovecot-2.2.27.tar.gz.sig > > Note that the download URLs are now https with a certificate from Let's Encrypt. wget complained about ERROR: certificate common name `wiki.dovecot.org' doesn't match requested host name `dovecot.org'. and indeed, the

We uograded our dovecot from version 2.1.10 -> 2.10.12, but within the first hour of use, dovecot-lda would segfault during delivery. This left a lock file lying around causing the user's mail readers to hang; much hilarity ensues. All further deliveries to the same user will result in a crash. The only thing that fixes this condition is to blow away the user's INBOX cache index.

Thanks Joseph, Aki, but something missing from upgrade document, where does the dh param file go? I located ssl-parameters.dat so I will put it there. Quoting Joseph Tam <jtam.home at gmail.com>: > On Fri, 22 Jun 2018, Joseph Tam wrote: > >> However, recent advances make this condition obsolete [*] and not >> really safer, so a much faster way to generate a DH key is

> It?s also possible that the cache files USED to grow quite large in > previous versions and that now they are much more reasonable, but the > only way to reset their size appears to be to delete them and let > dovecot rebuild them. I seem to recall these cache files ballooned in size when I did some doveadm search queries -- under some circumstances some headers fetches are cached

And here is mine. All dates are todays! # doveadm -f tab fetch -u test at example.org "uid date.saved" mailbox Trash uid date.saved 6829 2018-07-18 06:04:50 6830 2018-07-18 11:10:13 6831 2018-07-18 16:16:15 6832 2018-07-18 16:16:15 6833 2018-07-18 08:22:55 6834 2018-07-18 16:16:15 6835 2018-07-18 08:47:10 6836 2018-07-18 09:12:11 6837 2018-07-18 09:53:31 6838 2018-07-18 11:03:31 SNIP a

On 24.01.2017 00:06, rej ex wrote: > Because we are building some monitoring application, we will need to > record all failed and successful login attempts. We need to record > remote IP, entered password in plain text, and if possible whether auth > request is for SMTP or IMAP session. SMTP? Wouldn't that be handled by your MTA, not Dovecot? AKi Tuomi wrote: > Since

Adi Pircalabu writes: > For us it is, we're periodically getting hammered by iOS devices that > try to open 300+ simultaneous IMAP connections for a single user from > the same IP, while the average hovers usually below 50 for the busier > mailboxes with many folders. Oh yeah, I've seen this. I think this happens when someone does a global pattern search, which causes the

> On 18 Oct 2015, at 20:25, Timo Sirainen <tss at iki.fi> wrote: > > On 18 Oct 2015, at 05:20, Joseph Tam <jtam.home at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> After setting imap_hibernate_timeout to 60s, I could not find any >> hibernated connections after a few hours. I tested hibernation and made >> an observation: IDLE'd imap sessions only

aside from cat? On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 03:07:58PM -0800, Joseph Tam wrote: > On Thu, 29 Nov 2018, Marc Roos wrote: > > >When concatenating mbox files like described here > >https://xaizek.github.io/2013-03-30/merge-mbox-mailboxes/. You will end > >up with an 'unsorted' mbox file. Is this going to be a problem > >esspecially when they are large >2GB's

Nice to get to hear this. However, the password is not stored in clear text here. How then does it work? On Fri, Dec 21, 2018, 00:58 Joseph Tam <jtam.home at gmail.com wrote: > On Thu, 20 Dec 2018, Odhiambo Washington wrote: > > > At the expense of sounding stupid, could you please expound on the > > sequence? :) > > In a nutshell, during protocol handshake, the server

<!doctype html> <html> <head> <meta charset="UTF-8"> </head> <body> <div> <br> </div> <blockquote type="cite"> <div> On 07/08/2019 00:37 Joseph Tam via dovecot < <a href="mailto:dovecot@dovecot.org">dovecot@dovecot.org</a>> wrote: </div>

On 2018-06-13 00:09, Joseph Tam wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Walter Ulmke wrote: > >> ... and just want to login using the standard Linux login > > Depends on what you which "standard" you mean but I'll just assume > you're using PAM, as suggested by your config. > >> auth_mechanisms = plain login digest-md5 cram-md5 ntlm rpa apop >>