- dovecot - dovecot.org

Username aliases
by Eirik Rye 05 Oct '18

05 Oct '18

Hi, Our organization is currently using a passwd-file user database for our Dovecot installs. However, we now want to provide simple username aliases. We currently use usernames that are -not- equal to the email address, but due to the fact that many major email clients/providers do not even allow you to specifiy a username, we now want to provide aliases where the username is equal to the email address. A simple solution would be to duplicate the lines in the passwd-file, with the email address as the username, but this does not seem be ideal due to data duplication. Ideally, there would be a secondary 'alias' userdb, which on a match would then restart the search in the primary passwd-file userdb using the new username. Is this possible? What would be the best way to go about this?

4 6

vpopmail
by Eric Broch 04 Oct '18

04 Oct '18

Hello list, I run Dovecot with the vpopmail driver and have found that it authenticates against the clear text password in the vpopmail database. Is there a configuration option either at compile time, link time, or a setting in one of the configuration files that tells the program to authenticate against the hash instead of the clear text? -- Eric Broch White Horse Technical Consulting (WHTC)

3 9

Re: [ceph-users] dovecot + cephfs - sdbox vs mdbox
by Webert de Souza Lima 04 Oct '18

04 Oct '18

Thanks Jack. That's good to know. It is definitely something to consider. In a distributed storage scenario we might build a dedicated pool for that and tune the pool as more capacity or performance is needed. Regards, Webert Lima DevOps Engineer at MAV Tecnologia *Belo Horizonte - Brasil* *IRC NICK - WebertRLZ* On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 4:45 PM Jack <ceph(a)jack.fr.eu.org> wrote: > On 05/16/2018 09:35 PM, Webert de Souza Lima wrote: > > We'll soon do benchmarks of sdbox vs mdbox over cephfs with bluestore > > backend. > > We'll have to do some some work on how to simulate user traffic, for > writes > > and readings. That seems troublesome. > I would appreciate seeing these results ! > > > Thanks for the plugins recommendations. I'll take the change and ask you > > how is the SIS status? We have used it in the past and we've had some > > problems with it. > > I am using it since Dec 2016 with mdbox, with no issue at all (I am > currently using Dovecot 2.2.27-3 from Debian Stretch) > The only config I use is mail_attachment_dir, the rest lies as default > (mail_attachment_min_size = 128k, mail_attachment_fs = sis posix, > ail_attachment_hash = %{sha1}) > The backend storage is a local filesystem, and there is only one Dovecot > instance > > > > > Regards, > > > > Webert Lima > > DevOps Engineer at MAV Tecnologia > > *Belo Horizonte - Brasil* > > *IRC NICK - WebertRLZ* > > > > > > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 4:19 PM Jack <ceph(a)jack.fr.eu.org> wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> Many (most ?) filesystems does not store multiple files on the same > block > >> > >> Thus, with sdbox, every single mail (you know, that kind of mail with 10 > >> lines in it) will eat an inode, and a block (4k here) > >> mdbox is more compact on this way > >> > >> Another difference: sdbox removes the message, mdbox does not : a single > >> metadata update is performed, which may be packed with others if many > >> files are deleted at once > >> > >> That said, I do not have experience with dovecot + cephfs, nor have made > >> tests for sdbox vs mdbox > >> > >> However, and this is a bit out of topic, I recommend you look at the > >> following dovecot's features (if not already done), as they are awesome > >> and will help you a lot: > >> - Compression (classic, https://wiki.dovecot.org/Plugins/Zlib) > >> - Single-Instance-Storage (aka sis, aka "attachment deduplication" : > >> https://www.dovecot.org/list/dovecot/2013-December/094276.html) > >> > >> Regards, > >> On 05/16/2018 08:37 PM, Webert de Souza Lima wrote: > >>> I'm sending this message to both dovecot and ceph-users ML so please > >> don't > >>> mind if something seems too obvious for you. > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> I have a question for both dovecot and ceph lists and below I'll > explain > >>> what's going on. > >>> > >>> Regarding dbox format (https://wiki2.dovecot.org/MailboxFormat/dbox) > >> when > >>> using sdbox, a new file is stored for each email message. > >>> When using mdbox, multiple messages are appended to a single file until > >> it > >>> reaches/passes the rotate limit. > >>> > >>> I would like to understand better how the mdbox format impacts on IO > >>> performance. > >>> I think it's generally expected that fewer larger file translate to > less > >> IO > >>> and more troughput when compared to more small files, but how does > >> dovecot > >>> handle that with mdbox? > >>> If dovecot does flush data to storage upon each and every new email is > >>> arrived and appended to the corresponding file, would that mean that it > >>> generate the same ammount of IO as it would do with one file per > message? > >>> Also, if using mdbox many messages will be appended to a said file > >> before a > >>> new file is created. That should mean that a file descriptor is kept > open > >>> for sometime by dovecot process. > >>> Using cephfs as backend, how would this impact cluster performance > >>> regarding MDS caps and inodes cached when files from thousands of users > >> are > >>> opened and appended all over? > >>> > >>> I would like to understand this better. > >>> > >>> Why? > >>> We are a small Business Email Hosting provider with bare metal, self > >> hosted > >>> systems, using dovecot for servicing mailboxes and cephfs for email > >> storage. > >>> > >>> We are currently working on dovecot and storage redesign to be in > >>> production ASAP. The main objective is to serve more users with better > >>> performance, high availability and scalability. > >>> * high availability and load balancing is extremely important to us * > >>> > >>> On our current model, we're using mdbox format with dovecot, having > >>> dovecot's INDEXes stored in a replicated pool of SSDs, and messages > >> stored > >>> in a replicated pool of HDDs (under a Cache Tier with a pool of SSDs). > >>> All using cephfs / filestore backend. > >>> > >>> Currently there are 3 clusters running dovecot 2.2.34 and ceph Jewel > >>> (10.2.9-4). > >>> - ~25K users from a few thousands of domains per cluster > >>> - ~25TB of email data per cluster > >>> - ~70GB of dovecot INDEX [meta]data per cluster > >>> - ~100MB of cephfs metadata per cluster > >>> > >>> Our goal is to build a single ceph cluster for storage that could > expand > >> in > >>> capacity, be highly available and perform well enough. I know, that's > >> what > >>> everyone wants. > >>> > >>> Cephfs is an important choise because: > >>> - there can be multiple mountpoints, thus multiple dovecot instances > on > >>> different hosts > >>> - the same storage backend is used for all dovecot instances > >>> - no need of sharding domains > >>> - dovecot is easily load balanced (with director sticking users to the > >>> same dovecot backend) > >>> > >>> On the upcoming upgrade we intent to: > >>> - upgrade ceph to 12.X (Luminous) > >>> - drop the SSD Cache Tier (because it's deprecated) > >>> - use bluestore engine > >>> > >>> I was said on freenode/#dovecot that there are many cases where SDBOX > >> would > >>> perform better with NFS sharing. > >>> In case of cephfs, at first, I wouldn't think that would be true > because > >>> more files == more generated IO, but thinking about what I said in the > >>> beginning regarding sdbox vs mdbox that could be wrong. > >>> > >>> Any thoughts will be highlt appreciated. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> > >>> Webert Lima > >>> DevOps Engineer at MAV Tecnologia > >>> *Belo Horizonte - Brasil* > >>> *IRC NICK - WebertRLZ* > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> ceph-users mailing list > >>> ceph-users(a)lists.ceph.com > >>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> ceph-users mailing list > >> ceph-users(a)lists.ceph.com > >> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com > >> > > > >

1 1

Re: Bug reports - auth is broken in Dovecot 2.3.3
by Berindeie Avram-Teodor 04 Oct '18

04 Oct '18

> > I do not have downloaded the source from GitHub. > > On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 1:53 PM Timo Sirainen <tss(a)iki.fi> wrote: > >> On 3 Oct 2018, at 13.22, Berindeie Avram-Teodor <berindeie.teo(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > I applied the patch and recompiled but nothing resolved. >> > What else can I do? >> >> You also need to run autogen.sh & configure again. >> >>

4 5

Re: Dovecot User Listing Error - getpwent() failed: Invalid Argument
by Reuben Farrelly 04 Oct '18

04 Oct '18

Sure: https://www.reub.net/files/dovecot/lightning-dovecot.conf https://www.reub.net/files/dovecot/thunderstorm-dovecot.conf Updated nightly. Reuben On 1/09/2018 12:26 am, Aki Tuomi wrote: > Can you provide doveconf -n? > > > > --- > Aki Tuomi > Dovecot oy > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Reuben Farrelly <reuben-dovecot(a)reub.net> > Date: 31/08/2018 17:12 (GMT+02:00) > To: Aki Tuomi <aki.tuomi(a)dovecot.fi>, Dovecot Mailing List > <dovecot(a)dovecot.org> > Subject: Re: Dovecot User Listing Error - getpwent() failed: Invalid > Argument > > No. Neither of those are installed on either system. > > Reuben > > On 1/09/2018 12:09 am, Aki Tuomi wrote: > > Could apparmor or selinux be causing this! > > > > > > > > --- > > Aki Tuomi > > Dovecot oy > > > > -------- Original message -------- > > From: Reuben Farrelly <reuben-dovecot(a)reub.net> > > Date: 31/08/2018 16:50 (GMT+02:00) > > To: Dovecot Mailing List <dovecot(a)dovecot.org> > > Subject: Dovecot User Listing Error - getpwent() failed: Invalid Argument > > > > Hi, > > > > I'm running dovecot-2.3 git and seeing on 2 of my Dovecot installations, > > the following message logged quite frequently: > > > > Aug 31 16:55:53 lightning.reub.net dovecot[7698]: auth-worker(7707): > > Error: getpwent() failed: Invalid argument > > Aug 31 16:55:53 lightning.reub.net dovecot[7698]: replicator: Error: > > User listing returned failure > > Aug 31 16:55:53 lightning.reub.net dovecot[7698]: replicator: Error: > > listing users failed, can't replicate existing data > > > > It appears that this could be having an effect on replication, but it's > > unclear because the secondary/replica doesn't see much traffic. > > > > Authentication is via PAM and the system is Gentoo Linux x86_64. passb > > driver = pam, userdb driver = static . > > > > doveadm user -u '*' shows the system users listed twice like this (is > > this a problem?) and then prints: > > > > ---- > > reuben > > liam > > reuben > > liam > > <some other users> > > Error: User listing returned failure > > Fatal: user listing failed > > ---- > > > > To me that doesn't look right. > > > > Can anyone suggest what could be causing this? I don't recall seeing > > this message some time ago so I suspect it's a recent change in either > > dovecot, or pam or glibc etc.. > > > > Thanks, > > Reuben

2 10

Authenticate users using their firstname
by Fady AL HAYALI 04 Oct '18

04 Oct '18

Hi, I'm setting up a Postfic and Dovecot with LDAP email server. My users in LDAP is like this: dn: uid=firstname,ou=People,dc=domain,dc=com uid: firstname uidNumber: 4025 gidNumber: 4025 givenName: firstname objectClass: top objectClass: person objectClass: posixAccount objectClass: shadowAccount objectClass: organizationalPerson objectClass: inetOrgPerson loginShell: /bin/bash homeDirectory: /home/firstname cn: firstname lastname mail: firstname.lastname(a)domain.com<mailto:firstname.lastname@domain.com> This is how I connect Dovecot with LDAP hosts = ldapserver ldap_version = 3 base = ou=People,dc=domain,dc=com deref = never scope = subtree user_attrs = user_filter = (&(objectclass=inetOrgPerson)(uid=%n) pass_attrs = uid=user,userPassword=password pass_filter = (&(objectclass=inetOrgPerson)(uid=%n)) default_pass_scheme = SSHA When I enter a user's email address and password as the following: email: firstname.lastname(a)domain.com<mailto:firstname.lastname@domain.com> password: password and according to my setting which I used "%n" as you see above, the username used to authenticate is "firstname.lastname". I checked the Dovecot variables but I couldn't find something useful in this case to manipulate the "%n" variable. I would like to keep using email addresses as "firstname.lastname(a)domain.com"<mailto:firstname.lastname@domain.com> but authenticate users using their first name. I really hit a wall here and any help will be much appreciated.

6 6

Possible architecture ?
by Alexandre Ellert 03 Oct '18

03 Oct '18

Hi, I'd like to achieve the following setup whit dovecot using multiple servers : - one server dedicated to all client IMAP (TLS) connections (i <http://mail.numeezy.com>map.mymaindomain.com, see below ) - each backend server has it's own local storage. no replication - each backend server responsible of a few domains - each backend server has it's own Mysql local database for user's passwords. ===> Server 1 : domains A, B and C ====> i <http://mail.numeezy.com>map.mymaindomain.com ===> Server 2 : domains D, E and F (143 TLS / 993 SSL) ===> Server 3 : domains G, H For example, if a user connects from domain E to i <http://mail.numeezy.com> map.mymaindomain.com, will Dovecot be able to use password database hosted on Server 2 ? Thank you ! Alex

3 3

Delete vs. Expunge in Public Namespace
by Chris 03 Oct '18

03 Oct '18

All, my IMAP client [1] marks messages as deleted, but doesn't expunge. Dovecot (2.2.27-3+deb9u2) expunges them. Is this because the mailbox is part of public namespace? .... ::1.38247-::1.00143: MALP6 STORE 48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61 +FLAGS (\Deleted) ::1.00143-::1.38247: * 48 FETCH (FLAGS (\Deleted \Seen)) * 49 FETCH (FLAGS (\Deleted \Seen)) * 50 FETCH (FLAGS (\Deleted \Seen)) * 51 FETCH (FLAGS (\Deleted \Seen)) * 52 FETCH (FLAGS (\Deleted \Seen)) * 53 FETCH (FLAGS (\Deleted \Seen)) * 54 FETCH (FLAGS (\Deleted \Seen)) * 55 FETCH (FLAGS (\Deleted \Seen)) * 56 FETCH (FLAGS (\Deleted \Seen)) * 57 FETCH (FLAGS (\Deleted \Seen)) * 58 FETCH (FLAGS (\Deleted \Seen)) * 59 FETCH (FLAGS (\Deleted \Seen)) * 60 FETCH (FLAGS (\Deleted \Seen)) * 61 FETCH (FLAGS (\Deleted \Seen)) MALP6 OK Store completed. ::1.38247-::1.00143: MALP7 SEARCH DELETED .... Oct 2 10:18:03 hyptest dovecot: imap(chris): delete: box=MailingListen/test125, uid=180, msgid=<740a9ba3-d637-3fa0-1b87-ff8d79491bf0@ hyp.postbox.xyz>, size=1509 Oct 2 10:18:03 hyptest dovecot: imap(chris): expunge: box=MailingListen/test125, uid=167, msgid=<740a9ba3-d637-3fa0-1b87-ff8d79491bf0 @hyp.postbox.xyz>, size=1509 namespace { list = yes location = maildir:/var/vmail/public/:LAYOUT=fs:INDEXPVT=%h/.public-indexes prefix = MailingListen/ separator = / subscriptions = no type = public } - Chris [1] https://raw.githubusercontent.com/quentinsf/IMAPdedup/master/imapdedup.py

2 3

Bug reports - auth is broken in Dovecot 2.3.3
by Berindeie Avram-Teodor 03 Oct '18

03 Oct '18

I applied the patch and recompiled but nothing resolved. What else can I do?

3 3

Bug reports - auth is broken in Dovecot 2.3.3
by Berindeie Avram-Teodor 03 Oct '18

03 Oct '18

Hello, I have compiled Dovecot 2.3.3 from sources but I have problems with authentication. I tried to rebuild Dovecot 2.3.2.1 but the error persists. I attach a .txt file with the information requested to report a bug. My main mail server is fallen, (the same for the test server) I will send the report from a Gmail address. If you need additional information I will be at your disposal.

2 1