[Dovecot] dovecot Digest, Vol 52, Issue 52

[Jerry Yeager]

 From the digest:

On Aug 14, 2007, at 1:04 PM, dovecot-request at dovecot.org wrote:

other messages cut out…

>
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 19:03:58 +0200
> From: martin f krafft <madduck at madduck.net>
> Subject: Re: [Dovecot] use of deliver from procmail advisable?
> To: dovecot at dovecot.org
> Message-ID: <20070814170358.GA17390 at piper.oerlikon.madduck.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> also sprach Kyle Wheeler <kyle-dovecot at memoryhole.net>  
> [2007.08.14.1833 +0200]:
>>> I understand that dovecot's deliver does a little more than
>>> deliver:
>>
>> It also understands the 'seive' filter language (an alternative to
>> procmail).
>
> I don't consider it an alternative to procmail because you cannot
> pass mail to external programmes, like spamassassin or vacation.
> Sure, sieve has its own vacation module, but I find that to be
> rather limited. See this thread:
>
>   http://dovecot.org/list/dovecot/2007-August/024686.html
>
>>> What do you think will be less resource-heavy: calling deliver
>>> for every mail received *in addition to* procmail, or letting the
>>> IMAP server update the metadata on access?
>>
>> Unless you're cutting it close to the limit on what your server
>> can handle, that's probably the wrong question to ask. A better
>> question is: which gives my users better performance?
>
> Good point. The users, however, as far as I know, all use tools like
> offlineimap to synchronise in the background, so it hardly matters.
>
>> your users aren't paying attention. Dovecot will *seem* snappier
>> if you do the indexing work on delivery rather than on access,
>> even though it may spend more CPU cycles overall to do so.
>
> Does anyone have hard facts on how much the server process loses if
> it encounters a folder with an index inconsistency?
>
> -- 
> martin;              (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
>   \____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:" net at madduck
>
> mulutlitithtrhreeaadededd s siigngnatatuurere
>
> spamtraps: madduck.bogus at madduck.net
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: not available
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 189 bytes
> Desc: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)
> Url : http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20070814/ 
> a1ee49ad/attachment.bin
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of dovecot Digest, Vol 52, Issue 52
> ***************************************

I am trying to understand if you mean that Sieve does not play well  
with other apps or if you mean it is Dovecot's LDA that does not play  
well, 'cuz the LDA works quite well with SpamAssassin via Postfix's  
and Dovecot's virtual user setup…

Here is a portion of the Postfix Master.cf file that let it work (non- 
relevant portions chopped out)


smtp      inet  n       -       n       -       -       smtpd
         -o content_filter=spamassassin

virtual   unix  -       n       n       -       -       virtual

tlsmgr    unix  -       -       n       1000?   1       tlsmgr

587       inet  n       -       -       -       -       smtpd
        -o content_filter=spamassassin

dovecot   unix  -       n       n       -       -       pipe
   flags=DRhu user=virtual:virtual argv=/usr/local/libexec/dovecot/ 
deliver -f ${sender} -d ${recipient}

spamassassin unix -     n       n       -       -       pipe
         user=nobody argv=/usr/local/bin/spamc -f -e
         /usr/sbin/sendmail -oi -f ${sender} ${recipient}



The header from this actual message (so you can see it in action --  
note the email address are obscured)

	From: 	  HIDDEN
	Subject: 	dovecot Digest, Vol 52, Issue 52
	Date: 	August 14, 2007 1:04:06 PM EDT
	To: 	  HIDDEN
	Reply-To: 	  HIDDEN
	Return-Path: 	<HIDDEN>
	Delivered-To: 	HIDDEN
	Received: 	by mail.HIDDEN (Postfix, from userid -2) id 0F11A234567;  
Tue, 14 Aug 2007 13:04:55 -0400 (EDT)
	Received: 	from HIDDEN (HIDDEN [A.B.C.D]) by mail.HIDDEN (Postfix)  
with ESMTP id 41ED223455C for <HIDDEN>; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 13:04:48  
-0400 (EDT)
	Received: 	from HIDDEN (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by HIDDEN  
(Postfix) with ESMTP id BA3101647268 for <HIDDEN>; Tue, 14 Aug 2007  
20:04:45 +0300 (EEST)
	X-Spam-Checker-Version: 	SpamAssassin 3.2.1 (2007-05-02) on  
HIDDEN.local
	X-Spam-Level: 	
	X-Spam-Status: 	No, score=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS  
autolearn=ham version=3.2.1
	Message-Id: 	<HIDDEN>
	Mime-Version: 	1.0
	Content-Type: 	text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
	Content-Transfer-Encoding: 	7bit
	X-Beenthere: 	HIDDEN
	X-Mailman-Version: 	2.1.9
	Precedence: 	list
	List-Id: 	Dovecot Mailing List <HIDDEN>
	List-Unsubscribe: 	<HIDDEN>, <mailto:HIDDEN?subject=unsubscribe>
	List-Archive: 	<HIDDEN>
	List-Post: 	<HIDDEN>
	List-Help: 	<HIDDEN?subject=help>
	List-Subscribe: 	<HIDDEN>, <HIDDEN?subject=subscribe>
	Sender: 	HIDDEN
	Errors-To: 	HIDDEN


Jerry Yeager


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2447 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20070814/7b110d1e/attachment.bin