similar to: Lightweight LMTP daemon to avoid overkill MTA

Hi, I was unclear in my question. The spam filter is only able to deliver mail over SMTP, not over LMTP.. So I would still need some kind of daemon that listens for SMTP and then offers incoming email to Dovecot's LMTP socket. Met vriendelijke groeten, William Edwards T. 040 - 711 44 96 E. wedwards at cyberfusion.nl ? ----- Original Message ----- From: Marc Roos (M.Roos at

I ended up 'hacking' LMTP support into the external spam filter. Someone else already contributed 'real' patches to implement LMTP support, so once I go live with this mail platform it should be stable. Met vriendelijke groeten, William Edwards T. 040 - 711 44 96 E. wedwards at cyberfusion.nl ? ----- Original Message ----- From: Marc Roos (M.Roos at f1-outsourcing.eu) Date:

Maybe nice to share some details? -----Original Message----- To: Marc Roos; dovecot Subject: Re[4]: Lightweight LMTP daemon to avoid overkill MTA I ended up 'hacking' LMTP support into the external spam filter. Someone else already contributed 'real' patches to implement LMTP support, so once I go live with this mail platform it should be stable. Met vriendelijke groeten,

Yes I am running sendmail next to dovecot on backend servers. That works ok. I have some problems with re-routing mail in a proxy setup. -----Original Message----- To: Marc Roos; dovecot Subject: Re[2]: Lightweight LMTP daemon to avoid overkill MTA Hi, I was unclear in my question. The spam filter is only able to deliver mail over SMTP, not over LMTP.. So I would still need some kind of

Yes dovecot, /etc/dovecot/conf.d/20-lmtp.conf ;) service lmtp { chroot = client_limit = 1 drop_priv_before_exec = no executable = lmtp extra_groups = $default_internal_group group = idle_kill = 0 inet_listener lmtp { address = haproxy = no port = 24 reuse_port = no ssl = no } privileged_group = process_limit = 0 process_min_avail = 0 protocol = lmtp

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 =

Hi! I have a few questions regarding Dovecot proxy: 1. 1.1 If I understand correctly, setting 'nopassword' in the proxy passdb file, authentication is completely up to the destination host. Setting 'nopassword' in no way means the proxy becomes an open relay. Is this correct? 1.2 Are there any security implications when using 'nopassword' on the proxy? 2. 2.1 I would

Hi Claudio Corvino via dovecot, We have received your request and a ticket has been created with Ticket ID - 22079. A support representative will be reviewing your request and will contact you shortly. To view the status of the ticket or add comments, please visit? https://support.atomia.com/helpdesk/tickets/22079 Speak to you soon, Atomia Support Team

> On 25/08/2020 14:35 Robert Nowotny <rnowotny at rotek.at> wrote: > > > I get ZLIB Errors after dovecot upgrade from 2.3.10.1 to 2.3.11.3 > > > Aug 21 15:27:34 lxc-imap dovecot: imap(acsida)<63870><jZk...>: Error: Mailbox Sent: UID=40826: read(zlib(/home/vmail/virtualmailboxes/acsida/storage/m.2409)) failed:

Can a mail admin ban atomia.com from posting? I mean, I like the idea that every post is clogging up their support queue, but really, not that much. Sent from my iPhone

Hi Claudio Corvino via dovecot, We have received your request and a ticket has been created with Ticket ID - 22073. A support representative will be reviewing your request and will contact you shortly. To view the status of the ticket or add comments, please visit? https://support.atomia.com/helpdesk/tickets/22073 Speak to you soon, Atomia Support Team

Anyone know why my text_area field is being prefilled with "empty_clob()" instead of simply being empty like I would expect? I''m using Oracle 10g so I suspect it''s coming from the oci8 driver somehow? Here''s the code: <% form_for :user do |f| -%> <%= f.text_area :notes, :rows => 2, :cols => 32 %> <% end -%> It should be just an empty

Phillip> Users don?t create these folder. The system does based on the Phillip> configuration which is what I have to figure out. Then post your configuration details! And details on how email gets into the system and into Dovecot.

Hi everyone, we have a duplicate e-mail problem with Dovecot 2.2.13 (LMTP as MDA) on a Debian 8 server. Our users are on external LDAP. We just need to setup a vacation responder (with Sieve) for our employees with a redirect to an alias (a distribution list), let's call it /LIST at domain.com/, that comprehends even the user that just activated the out of office. This generates a

All, For a production environment, I'd like to setup CentOS XEN guests as lightweight as possible. I'd like the XEN guests to be able to send nightly email as all CentOS servers do, but there is no reason to run a mail server as the CentOS Dom0 already has an email server running that can act as an email smart host. The options that seem most appealing to me are either ssmtp or sendmail

hi we are using dovecot version 2.2.7 (config file given below) centos 6, qmail, vpopmail, mysql server configuration hex core processor, 16 gb ram 1 X 600 gb 15 k rpm for main drive and 2 X 2000 gb hdd for data (No raid) busy server with around 4000 email ids --- load is around 2 to 10 the issue is that SQUIRRELMAIL webmail users suddenly lose connection while they are working on the webmail.

<!doctype html> <html> <head> <meta charset="UTF-8"> </head> <body> <div> <br> </div> <blockquote type="cite"> <div> On 12/12/2019 00:10 William Edwards <wedwards@cyberfusion.nl> wrote: </div> <div> <br> </div> <div> <br>

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

<!doctype html> <html> <head> <meta charset="UTF-8"> </head> <body> <div> <br> </div> <blockquote type="cite"> <div> On 27/12/2019 16:02 William Edwards <wedwards@cyberfusion.nl> wrote: </div> <div> <br> </div> <div> <br>

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 @