similar to: Solving CVE-2008-4870

Hi, dovecot's imap process segfaults when I search a virtual mailbox using the fts_squat plugin. Is this supposed to work, or a known bug? I've seen some changes commited to fts_solr a couple of months ago that where supposed to fix search issues on virtual mailboxes, maybe fts_squat needs to be fixed to? log === rawlog ------ 3551 SELECT "INBOX.virtual.unseen" 3552 UID

Hi there, first, thanks a lot for syslinux! I'm aware that one can't mix syslinux 4's MBR + ldlinux.sys with syslinux 6's COM32R modules. Fair enough. Now, I need to know how strong this "versions *must* match" requirement is when dealing with different versions of syslinux 6.x. E.g. * MBR and ldlinux.sys installed by syslinux 6.03-pre1 * all *.c32 modules

Hi, I have just installed dovecot and offlineimap on my laptop for syncing with my gmail, and reading in gnus, as outlined in this article: http://sachachua.com/wp/2008/05/08/geek-how-to-use-offlineimap-and-the-dovecot-mail-server-to-read-your-gmail-in-emacs-efficiently/ I am using Debian Etch, and I am the only user. The only change I made to the default dovecot.conf file was to set:

Hi, first, thanks a lot, Ady and Gene, for your prompt and very useful replies! Ady wrote (11 Jun 2014 20:18:43 GMT) : > Although I haven't tested it lately, the Tuxboot tool should be able > to use the version of Syslinux included in your ISO images so to > transfer it to a (USB) drive. Since it works for other Debian-based > distros, it might answer to your needs.

Hi! I would like to know if there is a plan to fix CVE-2008-4578 bug (ACL vs. "parent/child/child" mailboxes) in 1.0 branch? I've tried to backport patch from 1.1.4 but with no success. Thanks Michal

Actually, as you may have questions with some elements you'll see in the log, and especially: Detected Syslinux version: 6.03/20150819 (from '/EFI/BOOT/isolinux.bin') So I should point out that EFI/grub is actually used by the tails people to chain load EFI/Syslinux (hence the ldlinux.e64, ldlinux.c32 as well as isolinux.bin one also sees in /efi/boot/). As a result, in the

Hi, [ouch, it take me a year? thank you all for this very interesting thread that I'm going to finish reading now.] Pete Batard via Syslinux: > I'll skip the EFI part of tails (that uses grub/EFI) to talk only > about the BIOS/Syslinux part. JFTR Tails uses GRUB only for 32-bit UEFI. We use syslinux for BIOS and 64-bit UEFI. > So, one thing Rufus will need to do is find a

On 3/28/19 6:41 PM, Aki Tuomi via dovecot wrote: > >> On 28 March 2019 19:40 Michal Hlavinka via dovecot <dovecot at dovecot.org> wrote: >> >> >> Hi, >> >> when trying to build dovecot 2.3.5.1 pigeonhole testsuite crashes in >> > > Which version of pigeonhole are you using? latest available - 0.5.5

Hi > Maybe I'm missing something, but this has been working flawlessly for > us in Tails so far. What exactly fails? Are you using EFI Handover Protocol? It might explain the difference Thomas

On 4/12/19 12:48 AM, Stephan Bosch wrote: > > > On 29/03/2019 10:23, Michal Hlavinka via dovecot wrote: >> On 3/28/19 6:41 PM, Aki Tuomi via dovecot wrote: >>> >>>> On 28 March 2019 19:40 Michal Hlavinka via dovecot >>>> <dovecot at dovecot.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> ? Hi, >>>> >>>> when trying to

Actually your Syslinux config is less relevant than the kernel config file. Indeed Syslinux infers the method to use from the kernel image itself. I assume the .config is public. I will take a look as soon as I can Thomas Le 04/08/2015 14:09, intrigeri via Syslinux a ?crit : > Thomas Letan via Syslinux wrote (04 Aug 2015 09:27:38 GMT) : >> Are you using EFI Handover Protocol? >

On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 21:16:42 +0200, Arjen de Korte wrote: > Citeren Timo Sirainen <timo at sirainen.com>: > > !include_try ssl-keys.conf > > That will only work to include an optional configuration file and > suppress errors if it doesn't exist. I put > > ssl_key = </etc/ssl/private/de-korte.org.key > > in a separate configuration file and it

On 13. Aug 2020, at 11.29, Timo Sirainen <timo at sirainen.com> wrote: > > On 13. Aug 2020, at 11.00, Arjen de Korte <build+dovecot at de-korte.org> wrote: >> >> I allow users to run 'doveadm' for mailbox maintenance (to expunge mail for instance). Since the upgrade to 2.3.11.3, this no longer works and results in the following error message: >>

Hi, Ady: > I am using the ISO image from TAILS as an excuse to "tease" TAILS' devs > and other users of Syslinux. If intrigeri (TAILS developer) "bites". > then users reading this mailing list might learn one thing or two about > Syslinux (6.04-pre1+). :) > 1_ EFI/BOOT/isolinux.bin is probably a mistake (or misunderstanding) > originated in the ISO

Hi tl;dr: Seems that for Global ACL directory, namespace prefix is not part of the path, when looking for acl file. Long version: We're planning to update dovecot in next os update to 2.2.36 and while going through regression testing, we found a problem with ACL configuration combined with namespace. Test uses "Global ACL directory" configuration. Relevant configuration part:

On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 3:44 AM, intrigeri via Syslinux <syslinux at zytor.com> wrote: > Hi, > > back in February, Scot Doyle proposed two patches: > > http://www.syslinux.org/archives/2015-February/023209.html 0a2dbb339 > http://www.syslinux.org/archives/2015-February/023179.html 83aad4f6 -- -Gene

Hi, we were modifying old SELinux rules for dovecot 2.0. Everything seems ok, only one report seems odd: "SELinux is preventing /usr/sbin/dovecot "write" access on dovecot.conf." Looking at strace output, dovecot tries to use socket on /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf which is regular file and no socket: ... geteuid() = 0 getegid()

Hi, thanks for the answer. I think your environment was not set up correctly to reproduce this bug. I've retested with 2.3.5 and I can still reproduce it. I've attached a script that will configure everything for testing and if you have a virtual machine available, you can use it directly (it expects linux with systemd for dovecot restart). relevant section from config: namespace {

Sorry, we have not yet been able to look into this.. It's now in our internal system as DOP-966 Aki > On 7 March 2019 17:31 Michal Hlavinka via dovecot <dovecot at dovecot.org> wrote: > > > Hi, > any progress with this issue? Do you need more information to debug and > fix this? > > Cheers > Michal Hlavinka > > On 9/18/18 4:10 PM, Michal Hlavinka

I'm going to get the hang of this mailing list eventually. Apologies for any duplicate emails.. >Ian Bannerman: >> While I did know the .exe variant was not official / untrusted, >Is there a special reason for this ? (Except the known bugs which affect Linux binaries, too.) Not really. I had never found a convincing source for it and had seen previous list entries like this