- dovecot - dovecot.org

[Dovecot] fcntl Bad file descriptor
by Bill Boebel 13 Oct '06

13 Oct '06

I've seen a couple of these in the log while testing the proxy too. Do you know what would cause this? Aug 10 23:30:29 director5 dovecot: imap-login: fcntl(-1, F_GETFL) failed: Bad file descriptor Aug 10 23:30:29 director5 dovecot: imap-login: fd_set_nonblock(-1) failed: Bad file descriptor Aug 10 23:30:29 director5 dovecot: child 14016 (login) returned error 89

2 1

Re: [Dovecot] Dovecot LDA
by Steven F Siirila 13 Oct '06

13 Oct '06

On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 10:25:53PM +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote: > On Fri, 2006-10-06 at 21:00 -0500, Steven F Siirila wrote: > > I am running Dovecot 1.0-rc6 along with dovecot-sieve from 2006-10-05 CVS. > > I am calling dovecot deliver from Postfix (main.cf): > > > > mailbox_command = /opt/dovecot/libexec/dovecot/deliver > > > > Upon switching to dovecot deliver, I observed two problems: > > > > 1) An extraneous "From " header now appears at the top of each message > > delivered, e.g.: > > > > From dovecot.deliver Fri Oct 06 19:59:57 2006 > > From sfs(a)tc.umn.edu Fri Oct 6 19:59:57 2006 > > Return-Path: <sfs(a)tc.umn.edu> > > > > Using Postfix delivery the first of these lines does not appear. > > This, of course, confuses MUAs. > > Don't give F flag to Postfix's pipe command. In looking into this further, I see what you're getting at. There are commands in postfix/master.cf which specify different flags depending on what external delivery program is used. However, I haven't touched that and none of the entries that came with the standard master.cf file reference Dovecot, so I'm not sure if any of those entries even apply. What I changed to cause Dovecot delivery to be initiated was simply the mailbox_command in postfix/main.cf: mailbox_command = /opt/dovecot/libexec/dovecot/deliver I have been unable to determine what, if any, changes are necessary in the master.cf file to customize what parameters are sent to Dovecot deliver. Anyone? > Although this reminds me that the "dovecot.deliver" is wrong in there.. > Hmm. I think I'll add a maildrop-compatible -f <envelope> parameter > here. Great. Now if I could only figure out how to get Postfix to specify that. :) > There, done in CVS. I'll also make 1.0rc8 release today. > > > 2) The "Content-Length:" header appears after a blank line, essentially > > putting it into the RFC822 body, e.g.: > > > > User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i > > X-UID: 11510 > > Status: > > X-Keywords: > > > > Content-Length: 200 > > > > test > > Are you sure it's a blank line? Dovecot adds lots of spaces after > X-Keywords which could just make it look like that. > > If it really is a blank line, then it's most likely something else than > Dovecot that changes the spaces that way. -- Steven F. Siirila Office: Lind Hall, Room 130B Internet Services E-mail: sfs(a)umn.edu Office of Information Technology Voice: (612) 626-0244 University of Minnesota Fax: (612) 626-7593

4 12

[Dovecot] you got chocolate in my peanut butter?!
by Logan Shaw 13 Oct '06

13 Oct '06

Hey everyone, Ran into something positively perplexing today. A user came to me and said that this morning when they checked their mail, they got about 120 strange new messages. Upon further inspection, it seems the "new" messages are all addressed to a certain other different user and are all 3 or 4 months old. And looking in that other user's /var/mail/(username) mailbox, I see the same messages that arrived mistakenly. And they're not in the /var/mail mailbox of the user whose desktop computer they ended up on. So it would appear that, possibly, when this user connected to the server, they got someone else's messages! Messages that, in fact, came from an account they don't even have the password to! I'm really curious if anyone has seen something like this before. We're using dovecot-1.0.beta9, and have been since mid-June. I've never seen anything happen like this before. I'm perfectly willing to upgrade to the latest release candidate, but it's hard for me to "upgrade and see if that fixes it", because it happens so rarely and it won't be easy to know empirically. So what I'm really hoping for is confirmation that this is/was a known problem, if in fact it is. Of course, I don't know that this is a dovecot bug, but I could imagine that it might be (maybe a daemon forgets to switch users after one session is closed and another is opened?), so I thought I'd ask. I did see what looked like TLS fixes and login fixes in the changelogs, so it doesn't seem out of the question that such a bug could've existed. Some more information: I checked the user's settings on their desktop computer, where the unexpected messages appear, and sure enough, there is only one POP server account configured there, and it has the correct username. What's more, I asked them what time this happened, and they said probably at 7:00am or maybe a little earlier. Looking at my dovecot logs, I see this (where 'theuser' is the user who received the messages): Sep 28 06:59:49 myhostname dovecot: pop3-login: Disconnected: user=<theuser>, method=PLAIN, rip=192.168.1.245, lip=192.168.1.20, TLS Sep 28 06:59:55 myhostname dovecot: pop3-login: Login: user=<theuser>, method=PLAIN, rip=192.168.1.245, lip=192.168.1.20, TLS Sep 28 06:59:55 myhostname dovecot: POP3(theuser): Disconnected: Logged out top=0/0, retr=0/0, del=0/9, size=130585 So, it would seem that the user did login at the time they claimed and it was at that time (or close to it) that the weird messages appeared. Also, I checked the logs for logins from the person whose messages accidentally got downloaded, and it doesn't show them logging in until several hours later. Oh, and there are no log entries for either of the two users in question before that, at least not for over 12 hours before that. The user is running Outlook 2003, with POP3 + TLS access to the mailbox. My dovecot.conf has nothing fancy in it: base_dir = /var/run/dovecot/ ssl_cert_file = /etc/mail/certs/server.crt ssl_key_file = /etc/mail/certs/server.key protocols = imap imaps pop3 pop3s disable_plaintext_auth = no login_dir = /var/run/dovecot/login syslog_facility = local0 first_valid_uid = 100 protocol imap { } protocol pop3 { pop3_lock_session = yes pop3_uidl_format = %08Xv%08Xu } auth default { mechanisms = plain user = root passdb shadow { } userdb passwd { } } The accounts are all coming out of LDAP via nsswitch (and this is all happening on Slackware 10.2), but I'm fairly sure that's irrelevant since "getent passwd", etc. all show the right stuff. Thanks for any help anyone can give... - Logan

5 9

[Dovecot] Login process died before initialization - FIX
by Timo Sirainen 13 Oct '06

13 Oct '06

I think this should do it: http://dovecot.org/list/dovecot-cvs/2006-October/006504.html

1 0

[Dovecot] parser bug
by DINH Viêt Hoà 13 Oct '06

13 Oct '06

hello Timo (and maybe other Dovecot developers), It looks like the MIME parser won't parse this correctly : Content-type: text/html Note the lower-case '-type' in 'Content-type'. -- DINH V. Hoa

2 1

[Dovecot] Feature req: auth_cache_relookup
by Bill Boebel 13 Oct '06

13 Oct '06

With auth_cache_size set to a value greater than zero, when our users change passwords their accounts stop working for a few minutes, because they are trying to log in with their new password, but Dovecot is comparing that against the cached old password. It would be nice if an option could be added so that if the login password does not match the cached password, the cache value is dropped and dovecot-auth queries the userDB, but only if the previous login was successful (to avoid frequent queries for bad logins). Maybe this option could be called "auth_cache_relookup" Bill

2 1

[Dovecot] default_mail_env renaming
by Timo Sirainen 13 Oct '06

13 Oct '06

I was thinking about renaming default_mail_env to something that is more understandable. I'll keep it working for backwards compatibility anyway. How about: # Location for users' mailboxes. This is the same as the old default_mail_env # setting. The default is empty, which means that Dovecot tries to find the # mailboxes automatically. This won't work if the user doesn't have any mail # yet, so you should explicitly tell Dovecot the full location. # # If you're using mbox, giving a path to INBOX file (eg. /var/mail/%u) isn't # enough. You'll also need to tell Dovecot where the other mailboxes are and # where Dovecot can place its index files. # # There are a few special variables you can use, eg.: # # %u - username # %n - user part in user@domain, same as %u if there's no domain # %d - domain part in user@domain, empty if there's no domain # %h - home directory # # See doc/variables.txt for full list. Some examples: # # mail_location = maildir:/var/mail/%1u/%u/Maildir # mail_location = mbox:~/mail/:INBOX=/var/mail/%u # mail_location = mbox:/var/mail/%d/%n/:INDEX=/var/indexes/%d/%n # # http://wiki.dovecot.org/MailLocation # #mail_location =

2 2

[Dovecot] Todo page?
by Francisco Reyes 13 Oct '06

13 Oct '06

Is there a Todo list? Looking for it in search function I think I saw one in CVS.. Is there a web CVS interface? I found the changelog in http://dovecot.org/nightly/, but did not see a Todo.

2 2

[Dovecot] 1.0.rc8 released
by Timo Sirainen 13 Oct '06

13 Oct '06

I've still over 200 mails unread in the mailing list, and important things left in TODO. This release is an improvement over rc7 anyway, hopefully I'll have time to fix the rest soon. http://dovecot.org/releases/dovecot-1.0.rc8.tar.gz http://dovecot.org/releases/dovecot-1.0.rc8.tar.gz.sig * GSSAPI: Changed POP3 service name to "pop", which is what the standard says * "mbox:/var/mail/%u" no longer works as the mail location. You'll have to specify the mail root explicitly, just like the examples always have: "mbox:~/mail:INBOX=/var/mail/%u" + SHA1, LDAP-MD5, PLAIN-MD5, PLAIN-MD4: The password can be now either hex or base64 encoded. The encoding is detected automatically based on the password string length. + Allow running only Dovecot master and dovecot-auth processes with protocols=none setting + deliver: -f <envelope sender> parameter can be used to set mbox From_-line's sender address + deliver: Log all mail saves and failures + Tru64 SIA passdb support. Patch by Simon L Jackson. - INBOX was listed twice in mailbox list if namespace prefix was used - INBOX-prefixed namespaces were a bit broken - kqueue: Fix 100% CPU usage - deliver: Duplicate storage was a bit broken - dictionary code was broken (ie. dict quota) - SIGHUP caused crashes sometimes

3 14

[Dovecot] 1.0rc8: another problem? Possibly 64-bit index?
by David Lee 13 Oct '06

13 Oct '06

Yesterday I gave a status report about 10.rc8 in production, which mentioned a problem about "Login process died too early..." Timo suggested a patch for logging error messages. I've applied this. Others suggested increasing "login_max_processes_count". That was already way above our likely maximum, but I've doubled it anyway. Today, I've just repeated the trial, but with one significant difference and one significant new problem. The significant difference is that today's machine is not a 32-bit i686 but a 64-bit (and faster) x86_64. The new problem is lots of occurences of: [...]: IMAP([...]): file ../../../src/lib-index/mail-cache-transaction.c: line 709 (mail_cache_add): assertion failed: (fixed_size == (unsigned int)-1 || fixed_size == data_size) [...]: child 4365 (imap) killed with signal 6 and: [...]: IMAP([...]): file ../../../../src/lib-storage/index/index-mail.c: line 105 (index_mail_get_fixed_field): assertion failed: (buffer_get_used_size(buf) == data_size) [...]: child 15009 (imap) killed with signal 6 Naturally, I've backed off quickly. Theoretically, this problem could be attributed to any of the three changes: logging, max processes, different (64-bit) machine. I suspect it's not the "login_max_processes_count" increase. Is it a side-effect of the better logging? (That is, was it always happening but the information simply not getting logged?) Note that our index files (and mail spool (INBOX, folder) areas) are on an NFS (NetApp) shared area accessed by all three classes of our machines: o existing UW-IMAP (which doesn't use the indexes) o yesterday-dovecot (32-bit) o today-dovecot (64-bit) My sneaky suspicion is that this is a subtle 64-bit-ism, either on its own, or in some sort of interaction with an indexes created from yesterday's 32-bit client. (Yes, theoretically, I could try another test to attempt to confirm or eliminate the 32/64 difference. But these issues didn't show up under testing, but only when we began trial service; I can't experiment on the users!) -- : David Lee I.T. Service : : Senior Systems Programmer Computer Centre : : Durham University : : http://www.dur.ac.uk/t.d.lee/ South Road : : Durham DH1 3LE : : Phone: +44 191 334 2752 U.K. :

8 10