November 2013 - dovecot

Re: [Dovecot] Dovecot login slow
by Joseph Tam 13 Nov '13

13 Nov '13

> ssl_ca = </usr/share/ssl/certs/rapidssl.crt > ssl_cert = </usr/share/ssl/certs/imapd.pem > ssl_key = </usr/share/ssl/certs/imapd.pem > > These lines look weird to me. Why do they have a < ? Red herring; this is standard. I think it means "feed this file into stdin". On 11/13/2013 12:41 PM, Marc Perkel wrote: >>> Takes about 10 seconds and it lets me in. I'm using MYSQL and it's a >>> small indexed database on a fast server so it's not the mysql query that's >>> slowing it down. At least I don't think it is. But - kind of stumped. Just >>> wondering if there's something obvious I'm overlooking. I think maybe turning up the verbosity on logging will help. If that doesn't, try process tracing the dovecot auth process. Joseph Tam <jtam.home(a)gmail.com>

1 0

[Dovecot] Dovecot 2.0.9 Quota Limit issues
by David Johnson 13 Nov '13

13 Nov '13

Hello, I've tried searching for information regarding this problem but haven't found anything. Currently I have a Dovecot 2.0.9 with virtual users from a SQL table. Right now I'm only using global quota limits. Here is my quota setup: plugin { quota = maildir:User quota quota_rule = *:storage=3G quota_rule2 = Trash:storage=+100M quota_rule3 = Archive:storage=+1G quota_rule4 = Archive/2013:storage=+1G quota_rule5 = Junk:ignore } According to the documentation this should allow the Archive folder to have an additional 1G in it that is not counted toward the global 3G. However I have users who have 2G in the Archive folder, and about 1G elsewhere. At this point they stop receiving emails due to quota exceeded. doveadm quota get -u <user> displays this: Quota name Type Value Limit % User quota STORAGE 3150312 3145728 100 User quota MESSAGE 8271 - 0 If I change Archive:storage=+1G to Archive:ignore then they can receive emails again. After the change doveadm quota get -u displays this: Quota name Type Value Limit % User quota STORAGE 1266885 3145728 40 User quota MESSAGE 8271 - 0 Is there something I'm missing as to why this setup isn't working? Thanks! -- David J.

2 2

[Dovecot] Can't see e-mails
by Muzaffer Tolga Ozses 12 Nov '13

12 Nov '13

Hi, I have a postfix+dovecot+mysql+roundcube setup. I recently changed providers. At the moment, postfix can receive e-mails but either dovecot or roundcube can't see e-mails. I did a telnet example.com 143 then a login user pass and this is what I see: 2013-11-12 16:08:51 auth: Debug: sql(alanya(a)boradental.com.tr,193.255.135.254): SELE CT '/var/vmail/boradental.com.tr/alanya' as home, 'maildir:/var/vmail/ boradental.com .tr/alanya' as mail, 5000 AS uid, 5000 AS gid, concat('dirsize:storage=', quota) AS quota FROM mailbox WHERE username = 'alanya(a)boradental.com.tr' AND active = '1' 2013-11-12 16:08:51 auth: Debug: master out: USER 3767009281 alanya@borad ental.com.tr home=/var/vmail/boradental.com.tr/alanya mail=maildir:/va r/vmail/boradental.com.tr/alanya uid=5000 gid=5000 quota=dirsize:storage=0 so I'm assuming dovecot works. Am I right to assume this? If I'm not, what's the solution? If I am, how can I debug this? Regards,

2 2

[Dovecot] how to make quota per user ??
by ihab 12 Nov '13

12 Nov '13

I use dovecot version 1.2.15 and i put quota for all users , now i want to give more size for some emails , i already added the quota to user database , and i added the queries from http://wiki.dovecot.org/Quota/1.1 MySQL: user_query = select uid, gid, home, \ concat('*:bytes=', quota_bytes) as quota_rule \ from users where userid = '%u' # MySQL with userdb prefetch: Remember to prefix quota_rule with userdb_ # (just like all other userdb extra fields): password_query = select userid as user, password, \ uid as userdb_uid, gid as userdb_gid, \ concat('*:bytes=', quota_bytes) as userdb_quota_rule \ from users where userid = '%u' but it is not work what i have to change and in which files please ? -- View this message in context: http://dovecot.2317879.n4.nabble.com/how-to-make-quota-per-user-tp45335.html Sent from the Dovecot mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

3 2

[Dovecot] my quota warning script not getting executed2
by ihab 12 Nov '13

12 Nov '13

Why is my quota warning script not getting executed? :( dovecot version is 1.2.15 this is part of dovecot.conf protocol imap { listen = 127.0.0.1:143 #ji1 quota config mail_plugins = quota } quota = maildir:User quota quota_rule = *:storage=2M quota_exceeded_message=Quota exceeded please go http://www.go.com . quota_warning = storage=99%% /usr/local/bin/quota-warning.sh 99 %u quota_warning2 = storage=98%% /usr/local/bin/quota-warning.sh 98 %u quota_warning3 = storage=97%% /usr/local/bin/quota-warning.sh 97 %u and this is quota-warning.sh FROM="postmasterEmail" msg="From: $FROM To: TEST EMAIL Subject: Your email quota is 10% full Your mailbox is now 10% full." echo -e "$msg" | /usr/sbin/sendmail -f $FROM "TEST EMAIL " exit 0 -- View this message in context: http://dovecot.2317879.n4.nabble.com/my-quota-warning-script-not-getting-ex… Sent from the Dovecot mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

3 3

[Dovecot] Dovecot MTA
by Timo Sirainen 12 Nov '13

12 Nov '13

Hi all, I've never really wanted to create my own MTA, because I like Postfix quite a lot. And I always thought it would require a horribly lot of time to be able to create something that was anywhere even close to having Postfix's features. (I would shudder to even think about recreating Dovecot from scratch nowadays.) But slowly over time I've also been thinking of ways how things could be done a bit better, and I think I have enough ideas to start thinking about Dovecot MTA more seriously in a few more months (after my current busy schedule calms down a bit). And (unlike Dovecot!) I'm not planning on taking over the world with the MTA (or at least not very quickly), but it would definitely be useful for many installations I know of. My main design goals for the MTA are: * In normal load don't queue mails, just continue delivering the mail through different processes/services until it succeeds or fails, and only after that return ok/failure to the SMTP client. So there's no (forced) post-queue filtering, everything would normally happen pre-queue. This is required because in Germany (and EU in general?) you aren't allowed to just drop spams after SMTP server has responsed OK to the client, even if you’re 100% sure it’s a spam. So this would also mean that the SMTP DATA replies will come more slowly, which means that the SMTP server must be able to handle a lot more concurrent SMTP connections, which means that in large installations the smtpd process must be able to asynchronously handle multiple SMTP client connections. * In some cases you can't really avoid placing mails into a queue. This could be because of temporary failures or maybe because of an abnormal load spike. A mail queue in local disk isn't very nice though, because if the local disk dies, the queued mails are lost. Dovecot MTA will allow the queue to be in object storage and it will also likely support replication (similar to current dsync replication). In both of these cases if a server dies, another server can quickly take over its queue and continue handling it. * Dovecot MTA is a new product, which means we can add some requirements to how it's being used, especially related to securely sending emails between servers. It could do a bunch of checks at startup and fail to even start if everything isn't correct. Here are some things I had in mind - not sure if all of these are good ideas or not: - Require DKIM configuration. All outgoing mails will be DKIM signed. - Require the domain’s DNS to contain _submission._tcp SRV record (and actually might as well require _imap._tcp too) - Require SSL certificates to be configured and always allow remote to use STARTTLS - Require DANE TLSA record to exist and match the server's configured SSL cert - Have very good (and strict?) DNSSEC support. If we know a remote server is supposed to have valid DNSSEC entries, but doesn't, fail to deliver mail entirely? - Add a new DNS record that advertises this is a Dovecot MTA (or compatible). If such entry is found (especially when correctness is guaranteed by DNSSEC), the email sender can assume that certain features exist and work correctly. If they don't, it could indicate an attack and the mail sending should be retried later. This DNS record would of course be good to try to standardize. * Configuration: It would take years to implement all of the settings that Postfix has, but I think it's not going to be necessary. In fact I think the number of new settings to dovecot.conf that Dovecot MTA requires would be very minimal. Instead nearly all of the configuration could be done using Sieve scripts. We'd need to implement some new MTA-specific Sieve extensions and a few core features/configurations/databases that the scripts can use, but after that there wouldn't be really any limits to what could be done with them. * Try to implement as many existing interfaces as possible (e.g. Milter and various Postfix APIs like policy servers) so that it wouldn’t be necessary to reimplement all the tools and filters. So perhaps something like this could be done in time for Dovecot v2.4. Any thoughts/ideas/suggestions?

30 76

[Dovecot] blames for using maillists ?
by Benny Pedersen 12 Nov '13

12 Nov '13

why do you not simply shut up? # sieve rule require ["imap4flags"]; # rule:[reindl] if allof (header :contains "From" "h.reindl(a)thelounge.net") { setflag ["\\Seen","\\Flagged"]; stop; }

3 3

[Dovecot] dsync-server panic/fatal errors
by IT geek 31 11 Nov '13

11 Nov '13

Would anyone like to hazard a guess what these errors mean: Nov 11 18:57:04 server2 dovecot: dsync-server(mark): Panic: file mbox-lock.c: line 799 (mbox_lock): assertion failed: (lock_type == F_RDLCK || mbox->mbox_lock_type != F_RDLCK) Nov 11 18:57:04 server2 dovecot: dsync-server(mark): Fatal: master: service(doveadm): child 3119 killed with signal 6 (core not dumped - set service doveadm { drop_priv_before_exec=yes }) Getting this replication working is driving me nuts! :'-( Any help would be appreciated. -Mark

1 0

[Dovecot] Incorrect Responses on deliverable mails with LMTP server
by Thomas Leuxner 11 Nov '13

11 Nov '13

Appears some change between 2.2.6 and 2.2.7 altered the response codes for LMTP user verification probes. Dovecot 2.2.6: Nov 2 15:50:48 spectre postfix/qmgr[627]: 3dBjr80wMgz1s: from=<double-bounce(a)spectre.leuxner.net>, size=271, nrcpt=1 (queue active) Nov 2 15:50:48 spectre postfix/cleanup[6226]: 3dBjr80xbYz1w: message-id=<20131102145047.2D3C6824147(a)sam.dfn-cert.de> Nov 2 15:50:48 spectre postfix/lmtp[6228]: 3dBjr80wMgz1s: to=<tlx(a)leuxner.net>, orig_to=<security(a)leuxner.net>, relay=spectre.leuxner.net[private/dovecot-lmtp], delay=0.03, delays=0/0.01/0.01/0.01, dsn=2.1.5, status=deliverable (250 2.1.5 OK) Dovecot 2.2.7: Nov 5 05:24:04 spectre postfix/qmgr[627]: 3dDHnc5J06z1s: from=<double-bounce(a)spectre.leuxner.net>, size=271, nrcpt=1 (queue active) Nov 5 05:24:04 spectre postfix/smtpd[2484]: 3dDHnc5KWcz1w: client=web.heise.de[193.99.144.71] Nov 5 05:24:04 spectre postfix/cleanup[2489]: 3dDHnc5KWcz1w: message-id=<E1VdXxN-0002Gx-0s.01(a)web.heise.de> Nov 5 05:24:04 spectre postfix/lmtp[2491]: 3dDHnc5J06z1s: to=<tlx(a)leuxner.net>, orig_to=<newsletters(a)leuxner.net>, relay=spectre.leuxner.net[private/dovecot-lmtp], delay=0.03, delays=0/0.01/0.01/0, dsn=4.4.2, status=undeliverable (lost connection with spectre.leuxner.net[private/dovecot-lmtp] while sending MAIL FROM) While it still seems to work, mail gets delivered, it looks pretty ugly in the logs. Regards Thomas

2 2

[Dovecot] server side private/public key
by Peter Mogensen 11 Nov '13

11 Nov '13

*Christian Felsing wrote: * > Please consider to add server side private/public key encryption for incoming mails. > If client logs on, the password is used to unlock users server side private key. > If mail arrives from MTA or any other source, mail is encrypted with users public key. > Key pair should be located in LDAP or SQL server. PGP and S/MIME should be supported. > This is for the situation if NSA or other organizations asks admin for > users mail insistently, So ... exactly which security threat are you thinking about preventing here? This won't protect against: * NSA listening in on the mails when they arrive. * NSA taking a backup of your mails and wait for your first attempt to read them - at which time they'll have your private key in plain text. It seems like a much wider protection to just keep you private key for your self. /Peter

3 2