[Dovecot] realtime backup with LDA?
Hello everyone, i was reading the dovecot-lda documentation as i'm using LDA as a delivery agent on my current mailserver configuration.
I was curious to know if there are some options for having a message to be delivered to a "twin mailbox" upon delivery. this twin mailbox would work as a backup archive for recovering emails in case the user accidentally deletes them.
so if i have a user which is alice i would create a second mailbox named backup_alice or whatever respecting a predictable schema and then every mail delivered to alice would also be delivered to backup_alice.
do you know if this can be done? have any example?
i was also planning to use shared folders + ACLS to have backup_alice accessible as a read only mailbox directly from the alice imap account.
thanks in advance Francesco
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 23 Feb 2014, Francesco wrote:
i was reading the dovecot-lda documentation as i'm using LDA as a delivery agent on my current mailserver configuration.
I was curious to know if there are some options for having a message to be delivered to a "twin mailbox" upon delivery. this twin mailbox would work as a backup archive for recovering emails in case the user accidentally deletes them.
so if i have a user which is alice i would create a second mailbox named backup_alice or whatever respecting a predictable schema and then every mail delivered to alice would also be delivered to backup_alice.
do you know if this can be done? have any example?
I would add a BCC recipient in the MTA. It's more save in such situation. See the thread about qmail and multiple recipients for one mail address.
i was also planning to use shared folders + ACLS to have backup_alice accessible as a read only mailbox directly from the alice imap account.
If posting (appending a new message) would be OK: Add a global Sieve script and let each message: fileinto :copy "backup";
Otherwise, use a shell wrapper:
file stdin into temp file, call Dovecot LDA with original recipient exit with LDA's exit code on error call Dovecot LDA with backup recipient exit 0 # ignores error to prevent repetitive delivery to recipient
I've posted a shell wrapper a few days ago in above mentioned thread.
Steffen Kaiser -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
iQEVAwUBUwsJuHD1/YhP6VMHAQIaGwf/S0Wypw98TklEf/NjH2wxb6hKaGndKZOs GMrVyo2VZCaxphu3TpanxSYiPqm3fhi9Ruax2QDulaOkDrm9CgGQrl+Q2lJqzaJD GQhowSzHi2fXswjTES4lAoMxB1JcvS7f9tEmVS2+xcv6ptVtro4HUcMC9ho39AvS mKnyx8NP+sy8Cp5CU7gTaLGaDR5pVpGS1CHu7ijQj8P0nRceP4jHo4p2yrxUbsMs lool4VVBnWLIhbgkKwoxYUF9ydnVSLMQ3dXnTgQIjAQTsRc5FvID1kuKbN5rLZGw CaOCc+kM33bYCk2++KwlDCpeFH8pOrayQFzDKPequN8TWkUm/sidKQ== =mul3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014, Steffen Kaiser wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2014, Francesco wrote:
i was reading the dovecot-lda documentation as i'm using LDA as a delivery agent on my current mailserver configuration.
I was curious to know if there are some options for having a message to be delivered to a "twin mailbox" upon delivery. this twin mailbox would work as a backup archive for recovering emails in case the user accidentally deletes them.
so if i have a user which is alice i would create a second mailbox named backup_alice or whatever respecting a predictable schema and then every mail delivered to alice would also be delivered to backup_alice.
do you know if this can be done? have any example?
I would add a BCC recipient in the MTA. It's more save in such situation. See the thread about qmail and multiple recipients for one mail address.
Just to emphaze my intention: Use the MTA's ability of aliases, forwards or whatever it is called. In sendmail you could create ".forward" files for each recipient, to forward a message to the user without further forward/aliasing and to other user(s). Or one could use sendmail's alias feature to split a message.
i was also planning to use shared folders + ACLS to have backup_alice accessible as a read only mailbox directly from the alice imap account.
If posting (appending a new message) would be OK: Add a global Sieve script and let each message: fileinto :copy "backup";
Otherwise, use a shell wrapper:
file stdin into temp file, call Dovecot LDA with original recipient exit with LDA's exit code on error call Dovecot LDA with backup recipient exit 0 # ignores error to prevent repetitive delivery to recipient
I've posted a shell wrapper a few days ago in above mentioned thread.
Steffen Kaiser -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
iQEVAwUBUwsnVHD1/YhP6VMHAQLG6QgAjymUpQdJ1jfX5hGJVfsn8EDGsDCxP+vL NgyMARd1jqh6psI7tMHl+nR8MU2X+/+Cp6QmPsg9aGld3hVaFSFTO39xtAqycwPo 3wIARrmqJ6Tk85jj/M6sxGyA200UN+qq+uQ+B2imwYuUJQsMqBrf5vfPQ3MTHVKy ZBFaMZZb6wcMwN7w45qVzR88NBlzlAfsRNgwaPM2QpBW4Zkkh/ph4mpZ50JunAN5 DZxrodVQOsp8KNdlSeI+4Zb20RUmxosg6bkqUbrwHtwiGBLIic71ohhgSBBatG5d DDLR66SAqykENFwVviXlNVJ0KLgJ2kkXvreSvPaKajf7tVUvhrO98w== =EQ7V -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 2/24/2014 3:58 AM, Steffen Kaiser skdovecot@smail.inf.fh-brs.de wrote:
I would add a BCC recipient in the MTA. It's more save in such situation. See the thread about qmail and multiple recipients for one mail address.
The only downside to this is all of the original headers are *not* preserved in the BCC copy.
I too would very much like to see a way to 'split' the mail delivery transaction so that an *identical* copy of the message is delivered to two different places simultaneously.
On 2/24/2014 3:58 AM, Steffen Kaiser skdovecot@smail.inf.fh-brs.de wrote:
If posting (appending a new message) would be OK: Add a global Sieve script and let each message: fileinto :copy "backup";
So... it looks like this would work as I described above? An identical copy, preserving all of the original headers?
Thanks!
Best regards,
*/Charles/*
On 2/24/2014 6:58 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2/24/2014 3:58 AM, Steffen Kaiser skdovecot@smail.inf.fh-brs.de wrote:
I would add a BCC recipient in the MTA. It's more save in such situation. See the thread about qmail and multiple recipients for one mail address.
The only downside to this is all of the original headers are *not* preserved in the BCC copy.
Given this is a function of the MTA, are you stating with authority that all the dozen or so Unix MTAs behave in this manner? Or are you simply stating the behavior of your MTA, and assuming everyone on the list also uses your MTA?
-- Stan
On 2/24/2014 8:39 AM, Stan Hoeppner stan@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
On 2/24/2014 6:58 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2/24/2014 3:58 AM, Steffen Kaiser skdovecot@smail.inf.fh-brs.de wrote:
I would add a BCC recipient in the MTA. It's more save in such situation. See the thread about qmail and multiple recipients for one mail address.
The only downside to this is all of the original headers are *not* preserved in the BCC copy.
Given this is a function of the MTA,
Says who? I would argue that it is more a function of the MDA.
are you stating with authority that all the dozen or so Unix MTAs behave in this manner? Or are you simply stating the behavior of your MTA, and assuming everyone on the list also uses your MTA?
Obviously the latter (postfix)... apologies for my presumptuousness.
Fyi, Stan, you know that sometimes you can be a real asshat in the way you make your point(s)...
--
Best regards,
Charles
On 2/24/2014 8:42 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2/24/2014 8:39 AM, Stan Hoeppner stan@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
On 2/24/2014 6:58 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2/24/2014 3:58 AM, Steffen Kaiser skdovecot@smail.inf.fh-brs.de wrote:
I would add a BCC recipient in the MTA. It's more save in such situation. See the thread about qmail and multiple recipients for one mail address.
The only downside to this is all of the original headers are *not* preserved in the BCC copy.
Given this is a function of the MTA,
Says who? I would argue that it is more a function of the MDA.
Says both Steffen's remarks above, and your reply to them. Why you would take exception to my simply reiterating the context is inexplicable.
are you stating with authority that all the dozen or so Unix MTAs behave in this manner? Or are you simply stating the behavior of your MTA, and assuming everyone on the list also uses your MTA?
Obviously the latter (postfix)... apologies for my presumptuousness.
It's not at all obvious, which is why I asked. When one makes a blanket statement such as that above, with 'not' in *bold* print, the statement needs to be qualified. This is precisely why I asked the two questions.
-- Stan
On 2/24/2014 12:12 PM, Stan Hoeppner stan@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
On 2/24/2014 8:42 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2/24/2014 8:39 AM, Stan Hoeppner stan@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
On 2/24/2014 6:58 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2/24/2014 3:58 AM, Steffen Kaiser skdovecot@smail.inf.fh-brs.de wrote:
I would add a BCC recipient in the MTA. It's more save in such situation. See the thread about qmail and multiple recipients for one mail address.
The only downside to this is all of the original headers are *not* preserved in the BCC copy.
Given this is a function of the MTA,
Says who? I would argue that it is more a function of the MDA.
Says both Steffen's remarks above, and your reply to them. Why you would take exception to my simply reiterating the context is inexplicable.
My comment about how it would work if/when using bcc settings (missing Steffen's reference to qmail, thus failing to limit my reference to postfix's use of the bcc settings) does not equate to my agreeing with the idea that 'it is the function of an MTA'.
It *can* be a function of an MTA, but it can also - and I would/have argued that it is more appropriately - a function of the MDA (the relevant part of that acronym being 'Delivery').
I took exception to the tone of your comment that I 'would ass-u-me that everyone on the list uses my MTA of choice'.
are you stating with authority that all the dozen or so Unix MTAs behave in this manner? Or are you simply stating the behavior of your MTA, and assuming everyone on the list also uses your MTA?
Obviously the latter (postfix)... apologies for my presumptuousness.
It's not at all obvious, which is why I asked.
I think it is obvious, since the alternative (that I can speak with authority with respect to 'the dozen or so Unix MTAs') is highly unlikely, even impossible - which is also why I took exception to the comment. It appeared, in my view, to be a comment aimed solely at chastising me for making a simple mistake of context, and that, again, I missed Steffen's reference to qmail (god, who uses that ancient, unmaintained thing anymore).
When one makes a blanket statement such as that above, with 'not' in *bold* print, the statement needs to be qualified. This is precisely why I asked the two questions.
And I apologized for presuming to assume that everyone uses postfix...
--
Best regards,
Charles
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2/24/2014 3:58 AM, Steffen Kaiser skdovecot@smail.inf.fh-brs.de wrote:
I would add a BCC recipient in the MTA. It's more save in such situation. See the thread about qmail and multiple recipients for one mail address.
The only downside to this is all of the original headers are *not* preserved in the BCC copy.
Er, I don't know what you mean with "all of the original headers". There are no headers of the delivery process to user, that's right. Everything else should be untouchted. Or in other words, the backup copy does not "backup" the delivery process.
On 2/24/2014 3:58 AM, Steffen Kaiser skdovecot@smail.inf.fh-brs.de wrote:
If posting (appending a new message) would be OK: Add a global Sieve script and let each message: fileinto :copy "backup";
So... it looks like this would work as I described above? An identical copy, preserving all of the original headers?
The other one would be the wrapper method. I just looked into the man page of dovecot-lda:
-p path
Path to the mail to be delivered instead of reading from stdin. If using maildir
the file is hard linked to the destination if possible. This allows a single mail
to be delivered to multiple users using hard links, but currently it also prevents
deliver from updating cache file so it shouldn't be used unless really necessary.So Dovecot LDA seems to keep its virtual fingers off the message and you don't need to redirect all the time and you can get hard links, if you use the same uid/gid for both users, 100% identical then e.g.:
#!/bin/bash
user=$... f=/path/to/dir/on/same/mountpoint/as/user/and/user_backup/$$.tmp cat - > $f dovecot-lda .... -d ${user} -p $f rc=$? if test $rc -gt 0; then rm -f $f exit $rc fi dovecot-lda .... -d ${user}_backup -p $f rm -f $f # ignore errors to prevent re-delivery to user exit 0
Steffen Kaiser -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
iQEVAwUBUwtWUXD1/YhP6VMHAQKHXgf/Z1h23FhLvd5KfHjb90neguH7p7ZoEL9t YyX52w8GCSkPXCvDkJ6Nc/iAi54TqkVzv7VERXODWDiMeB/rmXSg/OnWMo5s2cSO AnV19SP6OPkmRcxPulOz1dp3uQoDUDbwW6iDf9EGaV3MzfNC6fBiOGUXeTDAbBa9 k6z6W1wwvqQ192/gkb6pkzw8wpL48zxurSPkquMH6hqB1MwfnQmS6J0cG3TY1+QP 7HbpvDaqJ4KPhlJk7DnIKk+78/pc04GnuAFqo/+JXDchNBgSSk7FzHys3/irLGLU BkyZ+kDfGNBklsH4Zzwb7L5soryDa5HAfgEZSydK404O3BtnMR2iVA== =P93w -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 2/24/2014 9:25 AM, Steffen Kaiser skdovecot@smail.inf.fh-brs.de wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2/24/2014 3:58 AM, Steffen Kaiser skdovecot@smail.inf.fh-brs.de wrote:
I would add a BCC recipient in the MTA. It's more save in such situation. See the thread about qmail and multiple recipients for one mail address.
The only downside to this is all of the original headers are *not* preserved in the BCC copy.
Er, I don't know what you mean with "all of the original headers". There are no headers of the delivery process to user, that's right. Everything else should be untouchted. Or in other words, the backup copy does not "backup" the delivery process.
As Stan so graciously pointed out, I was talking about the specific MTA that I use - postfix - and I based my comment on the fact that everyone on the postfix list, including Wietse, stated that using the BCC method does *not* preserve all of the original message headers (identically to the non BCC'd copy).
Are you saying Wietse was incorrect?
--
Best regards,
Charles
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014, Charles Marcus wrote:
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:44:15 -0500 From: Charles Marcus CMarcus@Media-Brokers.com Reply-To: Dovecot Mailing List dovecot@dovecot.org To: dovecot@dovecot.org Subject: Re: [Dovecot] realtime backup with LDA?
On 2/24/2014 9:25 AM, Steffen Kaiser skdovecot@smail.inf.fh-brs.de wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2/24/2014 3:58 AM, Steffen Kaiser skdovecot@smail.inf.fh-brs.de wrote:
I would add a BCC recipient in the MTA. It's more save in such situation. See the thread about qmail and multiple recipients for one mail address.
The only downside to this is all of the original headers are *not* preserved in the BCC copy.
Er, I don't know what you mean with "all of the original headers". There are no headers of the delivery process to user, that's right. Everything else should be untouchted. Or in other words, the backup copy does not "backup" the delivery process.
As Stan so graciously pointed out, I was talking about the specific MTA that I use - postfix - and I based my comment on the fact that everyone on the postfix list, including Wietse, stated that using the BCC method does *not* preserve all of the original message headers (identically to the non BCC'd copy).
Are you saying Wietse was incorrect?
What changes are made by default, that are not implemented by the MTA admin? And yes, if I have two recipients of one message, I expect the headers stay untouched. If we enter the discussion "shall the MTA remove the "for XYZ" from Received headers", if one add a recipient, I back out. :-)
Steffen Kaiser -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
iQEVAwUBUwthl3D1/YhP6VMHAQKtaAf/SFASDui9ShrUK5CQb3ohwS43lf18OOFu nUcwuVD5oFO2GQ40ukTrwXAybJZIdG5wmmN6nxhVmUcKPd3bRe75hYLLdIwURgPD KYciseZ+lKGotIuLulE0uPsrQapXFDDcrJ5Heg3kAoIG9TH6EQ0vaXNexNnKnQ/F UPQwkcBFnVBmK3lFJwZKMAzsrjql1lRc+D2v9CZ3ras2HzfSKfHQ86w9LV2jBDsA 7wsf0wTXAKGqb54Z5LiIZQLw5EVJxyKqByH1kRzT/xWSbawmkk7sgPvo2P9IOoui oi9zSYIiOfMfVY0ZmfaCkR5AlK/QWej1JY4Ezs36zgAQkzSW2Sm8iQ== =kh35 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 2/24/2014 10:13 AM, Steffen Kaiser skdovecot@smail.inf.fh-brs.de wrote:
What changes are made by default, that are not implemented by the MTA admin?
Sorry, I don't understand the question (language thing I'm sure).
I'm talking about the 'always_bcc' feature in postfix, which obviously must be enabled by the MTA sysadmin.
And yes, if I have two recipients of one message, I expect the headers stay untouched. If we enter the discussion "shall the MTA remove the "for XYZ" from Received headers", if one add a recipient, I back out. :-)
I don't recall the specifics of the differences, but after the differences were discussed on list, they were enough that some people said it was not satisfactory for the legal requirements for mail archiving.
--
Best regards,
Charles
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2/24/2014 10:13 AM, Steffen Kaiser skdovecot@smail.inf.fh-brs.de wrote:
What changes are made by default, that are not implemented by the MTA admin?
Sorry, I don't understand the question (language thing I'm sure).
Doesn't matter with always_bcc :-)
I'm talking about the 'always_bcc' feature in postfix, which obviously must be enabled by the MTA sysadmin.
Ah, OK. But this is not what I meant, because it would sent all messages to one and a single mail address, for all users, right? I mean to add a BCC per user to "user"_backup, like a per user alias or forward.
A message to user A is "split" into a message to user A and A_backup, where the new message to user A is not split again.
Steffen Kaiser -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
iQEVAwUBUwtv2XD1/YhP6VMHAQJ2ogf+NPnVnFTeY95938ZreunCK6iQW4LEpS+m pBoG2YsxlQMsPWtIsi702R3WqFgBdGVYLKRI91ikrfpjqNFL3YIqmfsmJ63Skm8W RxuYU2UPWJExWot3v0WJXntB5hy22qDG7lelfqI+5DdeWtls1vW1y9XiHkSldOQL 29ZtCxqkiYC1XHAbEIdO70v3DVd9GVzzkfQ3bY2zPH85+5ntsBkppM/G3jhu+kuh hIXAFYcfVN7MuqTPE2FkoUZCB/2HlkG2wzDGJiqReYfCy2Sp5ejScPtRdUupKD5P lyROk+d9+tBcfaMMtoe9IWNwb2HLw6JnSvzqhp36/H1D9dXkRYhXqg== =y9GX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 2/24/2014 11:14 AM, Steffen Kaiser skdovecot@smail.inf.fh-brs.de wrote:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014, Charles Marcus wrote:
I'm talking about the 'always_bcc' feature in postfix, which obviously must be enabled by the MTA sysadmin.
Ah, OK. But this is not what I meant, because it would sent all messages to one and a single mail address, for all users, right? I mean to add a BCC per user to "user"_backup, like a per user alias or forward.
Depends on how you implement it. You can use sender[recipient]_bcc_maps and provide a separate address for each.
--
Best regards,
Charles
Am 24.02.2014 18:06, schrieb Charles Marcus:
On 2/24/2014 11:14 AM, Steffen Kaiser skdovecot@smail.inf.fh-brs.de wrote:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014, Charles Marcus wrote:
I'm talking about the 'always_bcc' feature in postfix, which obviously must be enabled by the MTA sysadmin.
Ah, OK. But this is not what I meant, because it would sent all messages to one and a single mail address, for all users, right? I mean to add a BCC per user to "user"_backup, like a per user alias or forward.
Depends on how you implement it. You can use sender[recipient]_bcc_maps and provide a separate address for each.
if you dont like bcc feature
i.e like this ( sorry only german just a archive solution)
https://sys4.de/de/blog/2013/02/07/mailarchiv-mit-dovecot-und-postfix-sortie...
you may try some global sieve copy rule etc,
http://wiki2.dovecot.org/Pigeonhole/Sieve/Configuration#multiscript
but your subject feel more you wanna use some replication mech
like
http://wiki2.dovecot.org/Replication
using dove lda wrapper might not the right design solution
Best Regards MfG Robert Schetterer
-- [*] sys4 AG
http://sys4.de, +49 (89) 30 90 46 64 Franziskanerstraße 15, 81669 München
Sitz der Gesellschaft: München, Amtsgericht München: HRB 199263 Vorstand: Patrick Ben Koetter, Marc Schiffbauer Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Florian Kirstein
On 2/24/2014 10:14 AM, Steffen Kaiser wrote: ...
I mean to add a BCC per user to "user"_backup, like a per user alias or forward.
A message to user A is "split" into a message to user A and A_backup, where the new message to user A is not split again.
If using Postfix, this can be accomplished via two methods.
- /etc/aliases
If using local accounts, create a new mailbox and add it as a 2nd value in the 'name: value, value' definition. See: aliases(5)
- /etc/postfix/virtual
If using a virtual(5) table, simply add a 2nd result (address) to each pattern.
Using aliases(5), the 'X-Original-To:' and 'Delivered-To:' headers remain intact. Using virtual(5), these headers are rewritten to the target address(es). The latter shouldn't be a problem for your use case.
Each such address needs to be added to an access(5) table which will be used with check_recipient_access to reject mail coming in via SMTP. You only want backup mail going into these mailboxes, not spam, not mistyped addresses that may match the mailbox name, etc.
-- Stan
On 24 Feb 2014, at 09:14 , Steffen Kaiser skdovecot@smail.inf.fh-brs.de wrote:
Ah, OK. But this is not what I meant, because it would sent all messages to one and a single mail address, for all users, right? I mean to add a BCC per user to "user"_backup, like a per user alias or forward.
A message to user A is "split" into a message to user A and A_backup, where the new message to user A is not split again.
/etc/postfix/virtual user1 user1,user11 user2 user2,user2@gmail.com user3+bank user1+bank,user2+bank,user3 stupidsony user1+sony
-- Ille Qui Nos Omnes Servabit
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014, LuKreme wrote:
On 24 Feb 2014, at 09:14 , Steffen Kaiser skdovecot@smail.inf.fh-brs.de wrote:
Ah, OK. But this is not what I meant, because it would sent all messages to one and a single mail address, for all users, right? I mean to add a BCC per user to "user"_backup, like a per user alias or forward.
A message to user A is "split" into a message to user A and A_backup, where the new message to user A is not split again.
/etc/postfix/virtual user1 user1,user11 user2 user2,user2@gmail.com user3+bank user1+bank,user2+bank,user3 stupidsony user1+sony
:-) Looks like that's exactly what I mean. I do not use postfix, so I do not know how the features are named there.
Steffen Kaiser -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
iQEVAwUBUwxM8HD1/YhP6VMHAQIrcAf+JA0c2DN3x0aOBvbGd1fUg5EX5u+m3tcG xobiIRIJx/yjfF7dzYsR7r4jEy6rvU3uVSz3TgkweDIBcWBSn46uIR8/7krOsuuC Og6+xOyEmCVC081eOTnnTYrLM3bGOjzID9rTe6SmXmJ6pceww7KLIkEF6fdbmn3M HTBNAmUItWceHzjEQBEMftwJyW9FlqNG2zeFRZO4BZN0unfOwf9b9ojgFHgQO4IZ MP0zi6m+35UV/fs+f73+26YERj1ajhMVI1wquaSifOdOtVOY3ROZRjSA8zDFmHZ4 LNTBJDPmQRgNoOfCDxsZWfx2wg/ynSfxNTxRvozzoFmoEOI1YxnLcw== =xcIG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 24 Feb 2014, at 05:58 , Charles Marcus CMarcus@Media-Brokers.com wrote:
I too would very much like to see a way to 'split' the mail delivery transaction so that an *identical* copy of the message is delivered to two different places simultaneously.
I have two methods of doing this.
- /etc/postfix/virtual
- /usr/local/etc/procmailrc
-- What would be the point of cyphering messages that very clever enemies couldn't break? You'd end up not knowing what they thought you thought they were thinking... --The Fifth Elephant
On 2/23/2014 9:07 AM, Francesco mailinglists@easy-mail.it wrote:
i was also planning to use shared folders + ACLS to have backup_alice accessible as a read only mailbox directly from the alice imap account.
Hi Francesco,
I would be *very* interested in seeing what you come up with, as I have been wanting to do the exact same thing - but it is very important that the users have *only* read-only access to these, as you specified...
Thanks,
--
Best regards,
*/Charles/*
Il giorno lun, 24/02/2014 alle 07.59 -0500, Charles Marcus ha scritto:
On 2/23/2014 9:07 AM, Francesco mailinglists@easy-mail.it wrote:
i was also planning to use shared folders + ACLS to have backup_alice accessible as a read only mailbox directly from the alice imap account.
Hi Francesco,
I would be *very* interested in seeing what you come up with, as I have been wanting to do the exact same thing - but it is very important that the users have *only* read-only access to these, as you specified...
Thanks,
Hi, everything is still under early implementing stages and i don't even have a testing environment yet so... i don't have much to share for now.
i have another mailserver where i have users who have read only access to a shared mailbox but i don't have the access to the configuration files right here right now. i'll post some sniplets of the configurations as soon as i have them handy.
Francesco
participants (6)
-
Charles Marcus
-
Francesco
-
LuKreme
-
Robert Schetterer
-
Stan Hoeppner
-
Steffen Kaiser