- dovecot - dovecot.org

Re: [Dovecot] Bit of a Newbie Question
by Wouter Van Hemel 11 Mar '05

11 Mar '05

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Jud wrote: >> You have not yet told us if you actually can receive email from outside; >> both with respect to your MTA configuration and an open (i.e. not >> firewalled) internet ip. > > I will have to investigate my MTA configuration. It's not clear to me > what is meant by an "open (not firewalled) internet ip." What > can/should I do on my system to create this condition? > Well, you should have an ip that is publicly accessible for mail servers on the internet, especially for the ones you expect will forward email. If your provider has a firewall for its customers that disallows access to certain ports (such as 25 and 80), you simply can not receive email (by SMTP). Perhaps FastMail will allow you to specify a specific port, but I doubt it. IMO, it's not a good idea to run a mailserver on a residential line with a dynamic ip; likely the contract with your isp even forbids this. Ofcourse, it's up to you to decide and try anyway. >> There is no difference for dovecot. For now, I'd say rather that the >> problem is either that your MTA doesn't accept email, or that your isp >> firewalls port 25 (which is rather likely on a dynamic ip home >> connection). > > It is probably true that my isp blocks port 25; it will be easy to > determine for sure. If so, are there any solutions you can suggest? > Do you have any accounts on remote servers? Just do a 'telnet your_internet_ip 25' ... or something along those lines. If not, try an online open relay testing service such as the one ordb provides: http://www.ordb.org/submit/ Be sure to enable test feedback. It will probably tell you enough for you to find out if it can reach your server or not. >> Read the MTA logs. See if there is any connection at all. If there is, >> check what happens with the messages (refused?). If there is not, you >> either are not accepting connections on your outside interface, or your >> provider has blocked access to port 25. >> >> Did you receive any bounces? > > Yes, though I deleted them, not even thinking to read them for > information. However, it is quite simple for me to create more bounces! > ;-) > Do so, and read the actual error message. This has very little to do with dovecot...

1 0

[Dovecot] dovecot and vpopmail
by radus＠smartpost.ro 10 Mar '05

10 Mar '05

Hello Does dovecot know to expand %d in default_mail_env to the default vpopmail domain in case the user logs without attaching the @domain in his login ? I last tried this on an old dovecot and this didn't work... Radu

1 0

[Dovecot] 1.0-test64
by Timo Sirainen 10 Mar '05

10 Mar '05

http://dovecot.org/test/ Possibly fixes the mail-cache-transaction assert. Passdb and userdb configuration changed. New format is: passdb sql { args = /etc/dovecot-sql.conf } passdb pam { } userdb passwd { } The above would first try to authenticate from SQL database, if it failed because user wasn't found, or password was wrong, it would then try PAM. The same is done for userdbs. I'll probably do some other configuration file changes still before v1.0. I'm also thinking about having a separate config process which can read the actual configuration from files or sql.

9 12

[Dovecot] Is it possible with mysql ?
by kaka 10 Mar '05

10 Mar '05

Is it possible to install dovecot imap / pop3 with mysql authentication, with postfix as mta and with squirrelmail as webmail ? Is it reliable for production state ? I'm working with courier-imap but I don't like it. Hi, kakà.

4 3

Re: [Dovecot] mail-cache-transaction.c error
by Jamie Herre 09 Mar '05

09 Mar '05

On Mar 8, 2005, at 12:50 AM, F. Even wrote: > Timo Sirainen wrote: >> On 7.3.2005, at 01:09, F. Even wrote: >>> Mar 6 16:50:59 cerebus dovecot: IMAP(problemuser): file mail-cache- >>> transaction.c: line 250 (mail_cache_transaction_reserve_more): >>> assertion failed: (size >= 2) >> I saw this a few times with my tests, but since it happened pretty >> rarely I thought it wouldn't matter much.. Guess you found a way to >> reproduce it much more easily. I'll try to look into it soon. > > Very regularly... Here's a recipe that works for me: Shutdown dovecot; Delete all "dovecot*" files from Maildir; Restart dovecot; Synchronize mailboxes. Every time I get a ton of the above exceptions.

1 1

[Dovecot] dovecot patch for TCB auth
by Thomas Hummel 08 Mar '05

08 Mar '05

Hi, I'm writing to you on behalf of the Pasteur Institute's (Paris, France) IT team. We're currently using dovecot-0.99.10.5_2 on a FreeBSD 5.3. We're planning to upgrade to dovecot-1.x with an openLDAP user and password database and patch it at the same time to include some authentication feature we're using : Since most of our user currently don't use dovecot at all and still authenticate on a DEC alpha running OSF1 [digital unix] V5.1 732, an authentication profile is maintained for each of them on the system. This user profile is kept in the protected password database, accessible only to trusted programs acting on behalf of the trusted computing base (TCB). Some TCB fields are useful to us so we're planning to use their LDAP attibute equivalents and we wrote a custom LDAP shema that includes those which were missing from the standard openLDAP distribution [see details below]. So we're planning (in fact are about to) patch dovecot-1.x in order to take those LDAP attribute (matching the TCB field of interest to us) into account. To do so, we wrote some documentation (still in a draft state) to extend our understanding of dovecot architecture and authentication process. Of course, we're going to give it (patch + doc) back to you and make it freely available. But we'd like to know if you : - were already working on such a patch or planning to do so - were interested, once done (by us or you) to include it into the official release, since it could interest some other person who runs digital unix with TCB authentication Thanks -- Thomas Hummel | Institut Pasteur, Paris, France <hummel(a)pasteur.fr> | Pôle informatique - systèmes et réseau -------- Here are some details about which attribute we're planning to use and their TCB equivalents uidNumber ~ u_id uid ~ u_name userPassword ~ u_pwd shadowLastChange ~ u_succhg shadowExpire ~ u_expdate shadowMax ~ u_life shadowWarning ~ u_exp [ shadowWarning = u_life - u_exp] plus the one we wrote : maxTries ~ u_maxtries [ maximum number of consecutive unsuccessful login attempts to the account that are permitted until the account is disabled ] numUnsucLog ~ u_numunsuclog [ number of unsuccessful login attempts to the account. It is reset when a successful login to the account occurs.] Lock ~ u_lock [ A boolean indicating if the account is locked ]

2 2

[Dovecot] mail-cache-transaction.c error
by F. Even 08 Mar '05

08 Mar '05

Hello all. I've just recently (this last weekend) migrated to Dovecot on my FreeBSD 4.x box. So far, so good, I like it a lot, and plan on moving mboxes to Maildirs sometime this next weekend. BUT....I've currently run into a problem. I'm seeing an error when one user account tries to access the INBOX from Squirrelmail: Mar 6 16:50:59 cerebus dovecot: IMAP(problemuser): file mail-cache- transaction.c: line 250 (mail_cache_transaction_reserve_more): assertion failed: (size >= 2) I'm using 1.0-test63: Mar 6 04:17:47 cerebus dovecot: Dovecot v1.0-test63 starting up I've since blown away the .imap folder for this user and tried again, it still fails. Other user accounts are having no problems. Here are the relevant log snippets: Mar 6 16:18:02 cerebus dovecot: imap-login: Login: noproblems [127.0.0.1] Mar 6 16:48:48 cerebus dovecot: imap-login: Login: problemuser [127.0.0.1] Mar 6 16:48:49 cerebus dovecot: imap-login: Login: problemuser [127.0.0.1] Mar 6 16:48:52 cerebus dovecot: IMAP(problemuser): file mail-cache- transaction.c: line 250 (mail_cache_transaction_reserve_more): assertion failed: (size >= 2) Mar 6 16:48:52 cerebus dovecot: child 64331 (imap) killed with signal 6 Mar 6 16:48:52 cerebus dovecot: imap-login: Login: problemuser [127.0.0.1] Mar 6 16:50:42 cerebus dovecot: imap-login: Login: problemuser [127.0.0.1] Mar 6 16:50:59 cerebus dovecot: IMAP(problemuser): file mail-cache- transaction.c: line 250 (mail_cache_transaction_reserve_more): assertion failed: (size >= 2) Mar 6 16:50:59 cerebus dovecot: child 64391 (imap) killed with signal 6 Mar 6 16:52:54 cerebus dovecot: imap-login: Login: problemuser [127.0.0.1] Mar 6 16:52:57 cerebus last message repeated 2 times Mar 6 16:52:58 cerebus dovecot: IMAP(problemuser): file mail-cache- transaction.c: line 250 (mail_cache_transaction_reserve_more): assertion failed: (size >= 2) Mar 6 16:52:58 cerebus dovecot: child 64420 (imap) killed with signal 6 Mar 6 16:53:31 cerebus dovecot: imap-login: Login: noprob2 [127.0.0.1] Mar 6 16:53:54 cerebus last message repeated 4 times Mar 6 16:56:12 cerebus last message repeated 12 times Mar 6 16:58:12 cerebus last message repeated 11 times Mar 6 16:58:30 cerebus dovecot: imap-login: Login: noproblems [127.0.0.1] Mar 6 16:58:34 cerebus last message repeated 2 times Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Frank

2 3

[Dovecot] Upgrade to new server question
by John Peacock 07 Mar '05

07 Mar '05

I'm vainly trying to get a new server ready to become the default mail server. We have a SAN, so I don't need to move the mailboxes (I can mount the same partition from both machines), but the question is what version of dovecot to load. I'm assuming that I cannot run both 0.99.14 and 1.00.x on the same maildirs (the indexes differ?). However, is it safe for me to mount the same maildirs from two different boxes? John -- John Peacock Director of Information Research and Technology Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group 4501 Forbes Boulevard Suite H Lanham, MD 20706 301-459-3366 x.5010 fax 301-429-5748

2 2

[Dovecot] 1.0-test63 released
by Timo Sirainen 07 Mar '05

07 Mar '05

http://dovecot.org/test/ A new test release for a change. Fixed several problems with indexes, especially related to transaction log rotating (pretty easy to find bugs when you set them to be rotated every 5 seconds and keep bombing the same mailbox with 10 test clients). Please report both new and old bugs. The changes might have fixed lots of different randomly occuring problems. The most important bugfixes were also done to dovecot-stable. The tarball is already updated. Looking at changelog, there seems to be: - Don't crash if client disconnects in the middle of APPEND - LDAP and static passdbs can return "extra parameters" (http://wiki.dovecot.org/AuthSpecials) now. Only SQL did before. - Added "nice" extra parameter for userdb to set imap/pop3 process's priority - RPA/SQL passdb patches from Andrey - Major rearrangements (again) to auth code: - Blocking passdbs (SQL) now create auth worker processes to do the actual blocking work. auth_worker_max_count setting specifies the maximum number of these processes to create. PAM and checkpassword code should be fixed to use this method as well. - Fallback to using expired records from auth cache if database lookups fail. - multiple auth setting blocks still not working - Transaction logs are now rotated when they're over 128kB and created (not updated as before) more than 5 minutes ago. So with high traffic mailboxes the log file shouldn't grow forever anymore.. - other fixes and cleanups

2 1

[Dovecot] Too many open files, etc.
by Martin Preen 07 Mar '05

07 Mar '05

Hello, a few days ago I switched out UW-server installation to dovecot 0.99.14 (Solaris 9). There were a few client issues, but mostly the migration was ok. But I have still some questions/problems: +) dovecot-auth: ... PAM: pipe() failed: Too many open files I increased the max. number of open files. Is this normal behaviour, that more than 512 open files are needed ? +) we're using mbox on NFS and index files on local disks. When building the index files for the first time, it takes (of course) a long time for large folders. But we have these users, and this will happen sometimes. Is there a way to improve performance ? +) in general dovecot saves a lot of NFS-bandwidth compared to UW-imap. Thats what I was looking for. But there also seems to be a problem with large inboxes (> 10 MB) and/or large attachments. Is this right ? One user currently gets this error from Pine when accessing a large attachment: MAIL FOLDER "INBOX" CLOSED DUE TO ACCESS ERROR. AFAIK this error is related to some timeout problem. Has anyone seen this (and a solution for it) ? Thanks. Martin ----------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Preen, Universitaet Freiburg, Institut fuer Informatik Georges-Koehler-Allee, Geb.52, Zi.00-006, 79110 Freiburg, Germany phone: ++49 761 203-8250 preen(a)informatik.uni-freiburg.de fax: ++49 761 203-8242 www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de

4 5