similar to: +vnd.dovecot.duplicate for Bogofilter duplication shortcomings

Hello, Yes but how to activate this for all users, not on a per user basis or without writing out thousands of sieve files to users directories. Thank you. On 2017-06-15 13:33, Stephan Bosch wrote: > Op 6/15/2017 om 12:19 PM schreef Luescher Claude: >> I have +vnd.dovecot.duplicate plugin enabled but it seems to be >> ineffective. Any other tips for a workaround? >> >

Op 6/15/2017 om 12:19 PM schreef Luescher Claude: > I have +vnd.dovecot.duplicate plugin enabled but it seems to be > ineffective. Any other tips for a workaround? > Enabling that extension does nothing by itself. You need to add a corresponding rule to your Sieve script. Also, that is the deprecated name for that extension. It is explained fully here:

Hi, on my small Xen-virtualised server with 48 MiB RAM I use Postfix and Dovecot, because the Debian administrators dislike qmail [1], which is in my opinion despite some maintainability and code quality issues a quite well designed software, because it mostly follows the UNIX principles. Postfix is not able to sort my E-Mail into different Maildir folders and after I looked at procmail's

> On 20 Jan, 2018, at 10:05, Adam Weinberger <adamw at adamw.org> wrote: > > >> On 19 Jan, 2018, at 4:39, Aki Tuomi <aki.tuomi at dovecot.fi> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 19.01.2018 04:35, Adam Weinberger wrote: >>> Since upgrading to 2.3.0 / 0.5.0.1, incoming PDFs are getting mangled. >>> It seems to be happening when I use

Op 1/21/2018 om 4:34 PM schreef Stephan Bosch: > Op 1/20/2018 om 11:01 PM schreef Adam Weinberger: >>> On 20 Jan, 2018, at 10:05, Adam Weinberger <adamw at adamw.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On 19 Jan, 2018, at 4:39, Aki Tuomi <aki.tuomi at dovecot.fi> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 19.01.2018 04:35,

Op 1/20/2018 om 11:01 PM schreef Adam Weinberger: >> On 20 Jan, 2018, at 10:05, Adam Weinberger <adamw at adamw.org> wrote: >> >> >>> On 19 Jan, 2018, at 4:39, Aki Tuomi <aki.tuomi at dovecot.fi> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 19.01.2018 04:35, Adam Weinberger wrote: >>>> Since upgrading to 2.3.0 / 0.5.0.1, incoming

> On 19 Jan, 2018, at 4:39, Aki Tuomi <aki.tuomi at dovecot.fi> wrote: > > > > On 19.01.2018 04:35, Adam Weinberger wrote: >> Since upgrading to 2.3.0 / 0.5.0.1, incoming PDFs are getting mangled. >> It seems to be happening when I use vnd.dovecot.filter. When I comment >> out the block, things come through fine. >> >> My filter block looks like

On 19.01.2018 04:35, Adam Weinberger wrote: > Since upgrading to 2.3.0 / 0.5.0.1, incoming PDFs are getting mangled. > It seems to be happening when I use vnd.dovecot.filter. When I comment > out the block, things come through fine. > > My filter block looks like this: > require "vnd.dovecot.filter"; > filter "bogofilter_filter"; > >

Since upgrading to 2.3.0 / 0.5.0.1, incoming PDFs are getting mangled. It seems to be happening when I use vnd.dovecot.filter. When I comment out the block, things come through fine. My filter block looks like this: require "vnd.dovecot.filter"; filter "bogofilter_filter"; if header :contains "X-Bogosity" [ "Spam,

Hi Jim, Thank you very much for the answer?! The result is really better with this?? Here is the code?: > kk<- function(x.Koordinate, y.Koordinate, data=data) + { + coordx<-data$x.Koordinate[data$G==24] + coordy<-data$y.Koordinate[data$G==24] + x <- ifelse(data$x.Koordinate>coordx-51 & data$G>15,data$x.Koordinate," ") +

DEBIAN package information: ii dovecot-common 0.99.11-3 ii dovecot-imapd 0.99.11-3 ii bogofilter 0.93.1-1 Apologies for cross-posting, but I think the problem lies somewhere in here. Maybe someone can tell me something useful. Now, I've confirmed the following: I received a mail message that was not spam, of size 2132 originally. clamav scanned it and bumped the size up to 2356

> On 21 Dec, 2017, at 14:37, Stephan Bosch <stephan at rename-it.nl> wrote: > > Op 12/19/2017 om 8:41 AM schreef Adam Weinberger: >> I'm getting a behaviour with pigeonhole that I wasn't expecting. Am I >> misunderstanding the design? >> >> I run my messages through a vnd.dovecot.filter. It's essentially this: >> >> filter

Hi, what is the point of adding an empty argument to the command called by the "executable = script ..." setting in a service? I guess that would be the call to array_append_space at line 57 in util/script.c. Background is that I'm trying to run bogofilter through the extprograms Pigeonhole plugin. So I've defined a service entry with a unix_listener and wondered why my test

Op 12/22/2017 om 3:43 AM schreef Adam Weinberger: >> On 21 Dec, 2017, at 14:37, Stephan Bosch <stephan at rename-it.nl> wrote: >> >> Op 12/19/2017 om 8:41 AM schreef Adam Weinberger: >>> I'm getting a behaviour with pigeonhole that I wasn't expecting. Am I >>> misunderstanding the design? >>> >>> I run my messages through a

Hello, Following up on old thread: http://www.dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/2014-December/099003.html I have the exact same issue with 2.2.10: ii dovecot-antispam 2.0+20130822-2 amd64 Dovecot plugins for training spam filters ii dovecot-core 1:2.2.10-1 amd64 secure POP3/IMAP server - core files ii

# 2.2.12: /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf # OS: Linux 3.15.4-x86_64-linode45 x86_64 openSUSE 12.3 (x86_64) Short version: 1) I filter out spam by using a dovecot sieve filter to act based on a header inserted by bogofilter 2) In some cases, sieve fails to correctly file based on this header 3) Testing with sieve-test indicates that it's testing the wrong header 4) Suggestions? Am I doing

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dovecot gurus, I have a couple of questions for which I haven't found answers in the docs (which may be well more a limitation of my capabilities than anything else). Here they go: - Is it OK to move mailboxes around from under Dovecot? Case in point: I'm using procmail to pass incoming mail through bogofilter (the standard recipe

On Mon, May 14, 2018, at 4:52 PM, Stephan Bosch wrote: > > > Op 25/04/2018 om 22:49 schreef James Cassell: > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018, at 3:20 PM, Stephan Bosch wrote: > >> > >> Specify the ID used for duplicate checking explicitly using the > >> :uniqueid argument (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7352#section-3.1). > >> Using the variables

Can someone suggest anything that will help with the following ext3 performance problem? (It's a Berkeley db issue at bottom, but the ext3 part is worth looking at, I think.) First, two paragraphs of background: A Bayesian spam filter called bogofilter uses Berkeley db to maintain two database files of identical format: one containing words found in spam email and for each word the number

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018, at 3:20 PM, Stephan Bosch wrote: > > > Op 23/04/2018 om 22:03 schreef Andr? Rodier: > > On 23/04/18 14:18, Stephan Bosch wrote: > >> > >> > >> Op 11-4-2018 om 23:58 schreef Andr? Rodier: > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> I have tested the sieve duplicate script with success so far, but I > >>>