similar to: RFC 8314 § 3.3 support at Dovecot submission proxy service?

If a LUN larger than 2 TB is attached to a Linux VM on Hyper-V, we currently report a maximum size of 2 TB. This patch resolves the issue in hv_storvsc. Thanks to Robert Scheck <robert.scheck at etes.de> for reporting the issue. Signed-off-by: Mike Sterling <mike.sterling at microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: K.Y. Srinivasan <kys at microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Haiyang Zhang

If a LUN larger than 2 TB is attached to a Linux VM on Hyper-V, we currently report a maximum size of 2 TB. This patch resolves the issue in hv_storvsc. Thanks to Robert Scheck <robert.scheck at etes.de> for reporting the issue. Signed-off-by: Mike Sterling <mike.sterling at microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: K.Y. Srinivasan <kys at microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Haiyang Zhang

We still have the program called "KillTheDoctor" [1] in our source tree. Its original intention was to stop requiring user interaction for crashing regression tests under Windows (infamous Dr. Watson, nowadays "[program] has stopped working" [2]), I don't think it is useful anymore. It's also a very hacky approach, as admitted in the source comment itself ("I hate

I'm having trouble setting up submission with Dovecot proxy. The submission config seems to be getting ignored, but I'm probably doing something wrong. Expected behaviour: have messages sent to submission ports (25, 465) relayed to `submission_relay_host`. -- root at imapproxy1:~# cat /etc/dovecot/conf.d/20-submission.conf submission_logout_format = in=%i out=%o submission_relay_host =

On 3/22/23 15:45, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > On 3/21/23 18:28, Eric Blake wrote: > >> it is indeed a bug in busybox now that POSIX is moving towards >> standardizing realpath, so I've filed it: >> https://bugs.busybox.net/show_bug.cgi?id=15466 > > I've found another busybox bug. > > The "/bin/sh" utility is provided by busybox as well (via the

Am 14.11.18 um 20:22 schrieb Aki Tuomi: > Not possible I'm afraid. Hello Aki, is it not possible in 2.2.36 or not possible at all? I stumbled upon RFC 8314 *) and I found it a welcome option to enforce more modern protocols/ciphers. IMAPS/SUBMISSIONS aren't used widely (at least to my knowlege, many postmaster used to configure IMAP+SUBMISSION and STARTTLS) Switching Clients to

>I have just checked it, the startup.elf and realmode.elf are fine. Only few changes are required for mainline kernel and one >commit has to be reverted from lld and a few patches have to be applied. > >The only step when I have used BFD is linking vmlinux. I have manually set LD variable in vmlinux_link() function. The vmlinux >produced by lld doesn't work yet. I will compare

> Le 27 juil. 2019 ? 14:30, Stephan Bosch <stephan at rename-it.nl> a ?crit : > > On 23/07/2019 17:13, Jean-Daniel Dupas via dovecot wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I'm having trouble configuring the submission proxy. >> >> I have configured the submission service as follow: >> >> submission_host = smtp.example.com >>

Package: logcheck-database Version: 1.2.54 /etc/logcheck/ignore.d.server/postfix specifies a filter rule to filter out anvil statistic logging: ^\w{3} [ :0-9]{11} [._[:alnum:]-]+ postfix/anvil\[[0-9]+\]: statistics: max (message|recipient|connection) (count|rate) [/[:digit:]s]+ for \(([.:[:xdigit:]]+)?(smtp(s)?|25|587):[.:[:xdigit:]]+\) at \w{3} [ :0-9]{11}$ If Postfix on port 587 is configured

Hello, I m using asterisk version 1.6.2.0 beta. I m trying to test load on it, for which i m using WINSIP installed at two computers and facing two problems. Problem 1: I got 100 users registered to asterisk from each winsip and then initiates 100 calls from one winsip other winsip. But the problem is approx of 60 calls get mature and asterisk give error for the remaining like shown below.

On 17/11/2014 07:23, Ron Leach wrote: > On 16/11/2014 07:24, Robert Schetterer wrote (re-ordered): >> Am 16.11.2014 um 02:24 schrieb Reindl Harald: >> >>> * if you find a security issue in postfix running >>> on 587 over TLS cry out loud > > I'm thinking beyond that; I want to get to the position that when > there is an issue in the MTA, our

>>That boot_params.hdr.code32_start field is probably either invalid (bad reloc or something else causing the bootloader to >>calculate the wrong address) or valid but the thing it thinks it is pointing to wasn't loaded (missing PT_LOAD etc.). >boot_params.hdr.code32_start field is valid :) It is 0x100000, like expected > >Then I suspect that that segment isn't being

Hi, In many mail setups a required feature (for privacy reasons) is to hide the host and IP of clients (in the "Received" header) that use the authenticated submission over port 587. In Postfix that's possible (https://serverfault.com/q/413533/86332), but not very nice to configure especially if you only want want to strip the Received header for port 587 submissions, but not on

Hi, Summary of problem: Local mail on the firewall stopped working after installing shorewall Background yesterday I installed shorewall, based on the debian package from www.backports.org (which seems to be a 2.0.3 package) on an otherwise virgin debian woody set up. Configuration was done based on the two-interface setup. Kernel is 2.6.8.1 unpatched. A 2.4.23 kernel, with

Package: logcheck Version: 1.2.54 When Postfix is configured to listen on port tcp/587 by uncommenting the "submission" line in the postfix master.cf, logcheck does not ignore the anvil statistics log entries - attached is a patch from the current SVN trunk. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logcheck_1531.diff Type: text/x-patch Size:

Hi Philon, now, it's time for "Mahlzeit" ;-) Sorry, that I read the wiki1 instead of wiki2. I thought the 1 means that it is server one of ... my fault. Also not reading the first line above the menu. My focus was really on the content. ;-) Also my problem with the doc of Dovecot2 proxy is, that the document https://doc.dovecot.org/configuration_manual/authentication/proxies/

Hello everyone, it's my first post here on this mailing list and I hope, I make it right. I posted a question on https://serverfault.com/questions/1031441/dovecot-as-proxy-with-submission and nobody was able to answer it. So I decided to push that question here (I'm talking about any new dovecot version and I've tested it with 2.3.4.1 (f79e8e7e4)). I try to run a dovecot proxy

> Le 29 mai 2020 ? 11:17, Stuart Henderson <stu at spacehopper.org> a ?crit : > > On 2020-05-26, mj <lists at merit.unu.edu> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 25/05/2020 23:04, Voytek wrote: >>> jumping here with a question, if I use 143 with STARTTLS, and, force >>> TLS/SSL in configuration, that's equivalent from security POV, isn't

Hi again, On 24/12/2017 7:11 am, Stephan Bosch wrote: > Op 12/23/2017 om 7:18 AM schreef Reuben Farrelly: >> Hi, >> >> With latest 2.3 -git (and 2.3.0 release), I'm running into this error >> with Thunderbird: >> >> "An error occurred while sending mail. The mail server responded: >> 5.5.4 Unsupported mail BODY type. Please verify that your

Hello all, I'm attempting to implement a submission server with questions in regards to how Dovecot handles the backend hosts capabilities. To my understanding, Dovecot will connect to the host specified in either submission_host or submission_relay_host, and gather a list of capabilities. Once gathered, after the client sends the EHLO greeting Dovecot will respond back with capabilities