similar to: Userdb by directory lookup

One day, I'll use the LDAP. But infrastructure I got is quite neglected and some older admins is hard to convince to innovate. Just, aaaaah :) I read whole documentation related to userdb a and passdb. Easy to understand with relation to IMAP or POP3 access. But what I didn't understand is relation to LMTP. Which one is used and when for successful delivery. I'll try to move

Is there some reason why you cannot use LDAP as userdb? Those uid / gid / home parameters can be also provided as global settings like mail_uid=vmail mail_gid=vmail mail_home=/data/vmail/user/%n Aki On 29.08.2018 23:12, Miloslav H?la wrote: > Hi, > > I have the Dovecot (2.2.27-3+deb9u2) with LMTP and Postfix. Static > userdb: > > userdb { > ? driver = static > ? args

On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 09:47:11 +0100 Miloslav Hůla via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > Dne 2019-01-15 v 13:22 Miloslav Hůla via samba napsal(a): > > When I mount CIFS share (mount -t cids) with vers=1.0 I can perform > > getcifsacl sucessfully. But when I mount with vers=2.0, or 2.1, or > > 3.0, ACL reading fails. > > > > getxattr error: 95 >

Hi When I mount CIFS share (mount -t cids) with vers=1.0 I can perform getcifsacl sucessfully. But when I mount with vers=2.0, or 2.1, or 3.0, ACL reading fails. getxattr error: 95 REVISION:0x0 CONTROL:0x0 Why getcifsacl depends on SMB protocol version? Can I read ACL via newer SMB protocol? A asked on Serverfault but without reply:

Dne 28.8.2015 v 9:56 Steffen Kaiser napsal(a): >> we are using LDAP binding as a passdb, and static with >> allow_all_users=yes as an userdb. >> >> Works fine, but problem is, Maildirs are created for non-existent >> accounts too. We would like to prevent it. >> >> The LDAP binding does not supporta user lookups. Is the correct way to >> use

Hi, we are using LDAP binding as a passdb, and static with allow_all_users=yes as an userdb. Works fine, but problem is, Maildirs are created for non-existent accounts too. We would like to prevent it. The LDAP binding does not supporta user lookups. Is the correct way to use checkpassword as a passdb before LDAP, check for account existency here and: result_success=continue

Hi, is there any way, based on userdb/passwdb attribute, how to postpone an email delivery? The purpose is, I need to freeze an account (Maildir++) for a few minutes and new email must not be delivered. But emails must be delivered when account is unfrozen. I found few things about Postfix filters, but I'm not sure it's a good way. Thank you, Milo

Hi, thank you for your reply. I'll continue inline... Dne 09.09.2020 v 3:15 John Stoffel napsal(a): > Miloslav> Hello, > Miloslav> I sent this into the Linux Kernel Btrfs mailing list and I got reply: > Miloslav> "RAID-1 would be preferable" > Miloslav> (https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/7b364356-7041-7d18-bd77-f60e0e2e2112 at lechevalier.se/T/). >

Hello, we are running Dovecot (2.2.13-12~deb8u1) on Debian stable. Configured with Mailbox++, IMAP, POP3, LMTPD, Managesieved, ACL. Mailboxes are on local 1.2TB RAID, it's about 5310 accounts. We are slowly getting out of space and we are considering to move Mailboxes onto Netapp disk array with two independent network connections. Are there some pitfalls? Not sure we should use NTP or

Some controllers has direct option "pass through to OS" for a drive, that's what I meant. I can't recall why we have chosen RAID-0 instead of JBOD, there was some reason, but I hope there is no difference with single drive. Thank you Milo Dne 09.09.2020 v 15:51 Scott Q. napsal(a): > The 9361-8i does support passthrough ( JBOD mode ). Make sure you have > the latest

Hello, I sent this into the Linux Kernel Btrfs mailing list and I got reply: "RAID-1 would be preferable" (https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/7b364356-7041-7d18-bd77-f60e0e2e2112 at lechevalier.se/T/). May I ask you for the comments as from people around the Dovecot? We are using btrfs RAID-10 (/data, 4.7TB) on a physical Supermicro server with Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @

Dne 09.09.2020 v 17:52 John Stoffel napsal(a): > Miloslav> There is a one PCIe RAID controller in a chasis. AVAGO > Miloslav> MegaRAID SAS 9361-8i. And 16x SAS 15k drives conneced to > Miloslav> it. Because the controller does not support pass-through for > Miloslav> the drives, we use 16x RAID-0 on controller. So, we get > Miloslav> /dev/sda ... /dev/sdp (roughly) in

Hi, we are migrating from Cyrus 2.3.7 to Dovecot 2.2.13. We have ~7000 maildirs with ~500GB. Our goal is to do the migration without users have notice and with the shortest service downtime. The users use IMAP (with shared folders and ACL), POP3 and sieve filters. As a first choice, we tried the Dovecot's dsync tool. First tests were great, but we are not able to change the Cyrus auth

Hi there. I've been using Dovecot for quite some time now but I just started using Let's Encrypt certs. Since LE certs are renewed automatically without user intervention I'm wondering if I will need to restart dovecot after that renewal... Has anybody had any experience with that? Thanks so much for your help! Ignacio -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was

Dne 07.09.2020 v 12:43 Sami Ketola napsal(a): >> On 7. Sep 2020, at 12.38, Miloslav H?la <miloslav.hula at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> I sent this into the Linux Kernel Btrfs mailing list and I got reply: "RAID-1 would be preferable" (https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/7b364356-7041-7d18-bd77-f60e0e2e2112 at lechevalier.se/T/). May I ask you

Dne 10.09.2020 v 17:40 John Stoffel napsal(a): >>> So why not run the backend storage on the Netapp, and just keep the >>> indexes and such local to the system? I've run Netapps for many years >>> and they work really well. And then you'd get automatic backups using >>> schedule snapshots. >>> >>> Keep the index files local on

Hi, we have one user using the old Alpine client with IMAP. Time to time (3 times per day or 3 times per week) he get error: "MAIL FOLDER INBOX CLOSED DUE TO ACCESS ERROR" and he complains, that inbox stops to refresh with new emails. I don't know Alpine but I can imagine, that Alpine creates TCP connection to IMAPS and uses IDLE. I read wiki page about Timeouts [1] and it

Hi, Is it possible to have a static user database along with an LDAP password database and *not* be forced to set "allow_all_users=yes" for the userdb? The wiki page on static user database says "Normally static userdb handles this by doing a passdb lookup instead." How should the passdb behave in order for this to work? In my tests (on a test server) I am using

Hello, which solution will be working or will be working better (performance). Using dovecot 1.2.6 (plugin section contains quota_rule = *:storage=500M:messages=10000 and i need override this default quota for some users) A) passdb sql(SELECT userid AS user, pw AS password, quota AS userdb_quota_rule FROM users WHERE userid = '%u') + userdb static (uid=500 gid=500 home=/home/mail/%d/%n

Hello, first sorry for this question. I already found many threads about this problem including a thread in this list from August 2010, but nothing helped :( Here is the error: 2010-09-20 06:28:04 lda: Debug: Loading modules from directory: /usr/lib/dovecot/modules/ 2010-09-20 06:28:04 lda: Debug: Module loaded: /usr/lib/dovecot/modules//lib90_sieve_plugin.so 2010-09-20 06:28:04 lda: Error: