[Dovecot] "stable" v. "alpha"
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 11:29 -0500, Ben Beuchler wrote:
Is "alpha" the new "-stable"? Should I switch?
Since you have problems with the -stable, could be a good idea to try it. It should be quite stable..
Although not that much has changed in dovecot-auth, so maybe the LDAP problems are still there. I'll try to look at them this weekend and see if I can figure out how they're happening.
I apologize for not getting back to you and the list, but I have since discovered that I was encountering a more generalized LDAP problem. I wil reply to my original post with more info.
-Ben
On 8/19/05, Timo Sirainen tss@iki.fi wrote:
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 11:29 -0500, Ben Beuchler wrote:
Is "alpha" the new "-stable"? Should I switch?
Since you have problems with the -stable, could be a good idea to try it. It should be quite stable..
Although not that much has changed in dovecot-auth, so maybe the LDAP problems are still there. I'll try to look at them this weekend and see if I can figure out how they're happening.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQBDBgr+yUhSUUBViskRAp+EAJ9i9a5GgsS8QED9utTymDrj0EcWeQCdGBKD ysgaq+Twapi5DjoRXqPBMvs= =h35Z -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 11:48 -0500, Ben Beuchler wrote:
I apologize for not getting back to you and the list, but I have since discovered that I was encountering a more generalized LDAP problem. I wil reply to my original post with more info.
Well, Dovecot was still behaving much worse than it should have. All it should have done was to log some errors about being unable to connect to LDAP server and give login failure replies to clients.
On 8/19/05, Timo Sirainen tss@iki.fi wrote:
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 11:48 -0500, Ben Beuchler wrote:
I apologize for not getting back to you and the list, but I have since discovered that I was encountering a more generalized LDAP problem. I wil reply to my original post with more info.
Well, Dovecot was still behaving much worse than it should have. All it should have done was to log some errors about being unable to connect to LDAP server and give login failure replies to clients.
It does fail gracefully if the server is completely unreachable. You only see the weird mess of errors I posted when the LDAP server gets in some as-of-yet unknown weird half-hung state.
-Ben
--On Friday, August 19, 2005 7:38 PM +0300 Timo Sirainen tss@iki.fi wrote:
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 11:29 -0500, Ben Beuchler wrote:
Is "alpha" the new "-stable"? Should I switch?
Since you have problems with the -stable, could be a good idea to try it. It should be quite stable..
How about for those of us still using 0.99. Anything to watch out for if we attempt an upgrade?
--On Friday, August 19, 2005 10:59 AM -0700 Kenneth Porter shiva@sewingwitch.com wrote:
How about for those of us still using 0.99. Anything to watch out for if we attempt an upgrade?
Forgot to mention, I'm using mbox on Fedora Core 2.
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 10:59 -0700, Kenneth Porter wrote:
--On Friday, August 19, 2005 7:38 PM +0300 Timo Sirainen tss@iki.fi wrote:
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 11:29 -0500, Ben Beuchler wrote:
Is "alpha" the new "-stable"? Should I switch?
Since you have problems with the -stable, could be a good idea to try it. It should be quite stable..
How about for those of us still using 0.99. Anything to watch out for if we attempt an upgrade?
http://wiki.dovecot.org/moin.cgi/UpgradingDovecot should list everything there is to know about it. I just updated it a bit. If anyone can think of more, please update it :)
Hello,
Since you have problems with the -stable, could be a good idea to try it. It should be quite stable..
is the pop3 RETR error that existed when a mailbox is pretty large and which I posted on 28th of april this with subject "pop3 retr error" fixed by now?
Regards Marten
participants (4)
-
Ben Beuchler
-
Kenneth Porter
-
Marten Lehmann
-
Timo Sirainen