I noticed that many places in the documentation and in examples gleaned from the wilderness, refer to the LDA protocol when discussing sieve.
The documentation also mentions that lmtp is preferred over lda, and seems to say in places that sieve will operate without issue in either case.
Does it matter to sieve implementation if one uses only lmtp?
Nope. That's what I do. With the new Tainting rules in the Exim MTA, LMTP became the easier of the two.
On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 5:28 PM Joe Acquisto joea-lists@j4computers.com wrote:
I noticed that many places in the documentation and in examples gleaned from the wilderness, refer to the LDA protocol when discussing sieve.
The documentation also mentions that lmtp is preferred over lda, and seems to say in places that sieve will operate without issue in either case.
Does it matter to sieve implementation if one uses only lmtp?
dovecot mailing list -- dovecot@dovecot.org To unsubscribe send an email to dovecot-leave@dovecot.org
-- Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 214-642-9640 (c) E-Mail: larryrtx@gmail.com US Mail: 5708 Sabbia Dr, Round Rock, TX 78665-2106
Nope. That's what I do. With the new Tainting rules in the Exim MTA, LMTP became the easier of the two.
On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 5:28 PM Joe Acquisto joea-lists@j4computers.com wrote: I noticed that many places in the documentation and in examples gleaned from the wilderness, refer to the LDA protocol when discussing sieve.
The documentation also mentions that lmtp is preferred over lda, and
seems to say in places that sieve will operate without issue in
either case.
Does it matter to sieve implementation if one uses only lmtp?
_______________________________________________
dovecot mailing list -- dovecot@dovecot.org
To unsubscribe send an email to dovecot-leave@dovecot.org-- Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 214-642-9640 (c) E-Mail: larryrtx@gmail.com US Mail: 5708 Sabbia Dr, Round Rock, TX 78665-2106
On 20/01/24 12:28, Joe Acquisto wrote:
I noticed that many places in the documentation and in examples gleaned from the wilderness, refer to the LDA protocol when discussing sieve.
The documentation also mentions that lmtp is preferred over lda, and seems to say in places that sieve will operate without issue in either case.
Does it matter to sieve implementation if one uses only lmtp?
LDA is older, think of LMTP as a more modern replacement. LDA has to launch a separate process and process one message at a time. LMTP maintains a running service and can stream multiple messages in a single connection, therefore LMTP is a lot more efficient.
You will see a lot of bad advice on the internet, or old outdated advice. Tutorials that use LDA is an example of old, outdated advice.
Sieve itself doesn't care which one you use, but there are other reasons to prefer LMTP.
Peter
On 2024-01-19 16:12, Peter wrote:
On 20/01/24 12:28, Joe Acquisto wrote:
I noticed that many places in the documentation and in examples gleaned from the wilderness, refer to the LDA protocol when discussing sieve.
The documentation also mentions that lmtp is preferred over lda, and seems to say in places that sieve will operate without issue in either case.
Does it matter to sieve implementation if one uses only lmtp?
LDA is older, think of LMTP as a more modern replacement. LDA has to launch a separate process and process one message at a time. LMTP maintains a running service and can stream multiple messages in a single connection, therefore LMTP is a lot more efficient.
You will see a lot of bad advice on the internet, or old outdated advice. Tutorials that use LDA is an example of old, outdated advice.
Sieve itself doesn't care which one you use, but there are other reasons to prefer LMTP.
Just wish LMTP would not end up with duplicate Return-Path headers..
-- "Catch the Magic of Linux..."
Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc. Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca "LinuxMagic" a Reg. TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd.
604-682-0300 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada
On January 21, 2024 12:51:00 AM GMT+01:00, Michael Peddemors michael@linuxmagic.com wrote:
On 2024-01-19 16:12, Peter wrote:
On 20/01/24 12:28, Joe Acquisto wrote:
I noticed that many places in the documentation and in examples gleaned from the wilderness, refer to the LDA protocol when discussing sieve.
The documentation also mentions that lmtp is preferred over lda, and seems to say in places that sieve will operate without issue in either case.
Does it matter to sieve implementation if one uses only lmtp?
LDA is older, think of LMTP as a more modern replacement. LDA has to launch a separate process and process one message at a time. LMTP maintains a running service and can stream multiple messages in a single connection, therefore LMTP is a lot more efficient.
You will see a lot of bad advice on the internet, or old outdated advice. Tutorials that use LDA is an example of old, outdated advice.
Sieve itself doesn't care which one you use, but there are other reasons to prefer LMTP.
Just wish LMTP would not end up with duplicate Return-Path headers.. Duplicate return path headers? I don't see them on my system. All mail is sent from postfix to dovecot with lmtp
-- Christian Kivalo
Same here with Exim delivering to Dovecot via LMTP.
On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 7:23 PM Christian Kivalo ml+dovecot@valo.at wrote:
On 2024-01-19 16:12, Peter wrote:
On 20/01/24 12:28, Joe Acquisto wrote:
I noticed that many places in the documentation and in examples gleaned from the wilderness, refer to the LDA protocol when discussing sieve.
The documentation also mentions that lmtp is preferred over lda, and seems to say in places that sieve will operate without issue in either case.
Does it matter to sieve implementation if one uses only lmtp?
LDA is older, think of LMTP as a more modern replacement. LDA has to launch a separate process and process one message at a time. LMTP
On January 21, 2024 12:51:00 AM GMT+01:00, Michael Peddemors < michael@linuxmagic.com> wrote: maintains a running service and can stream multiple messages in a single connection, therefore LMTP is a lot more efficient.
You will see a lot of bad advice on the internet, or old outdated
advice. Tutorials that use LDA is an example of old, outdated advice.
Sieve itself doesn't care which one you use, but there are other
reasons to prefer LMTP.
Just wish LMTP would not end up with duplicate Return-Path headers.. Duplicate return path headers? I don't see them on my system. All mail is sent from postfix to dovecot with lmtp
-- Christian Kivalo
dovecot mailing list -- dovecot@dovecot.org To unsubscribe send an email to dovecot-leave@dovecot.org
-- Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 214-642-9640 (c) E-Mail: larryrtx@gmail.com US Mail: 5708 Sabbia Dr, Round Rock, TX 78665-2106
Same here with Exim delivering to Dovecot via LMTP.
On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 7:23 PM Christian Kivalo ml+dovecot@valo.at wrote:
On January 21, 2024 12:51:00 AM GMT+01:00, Michael Peddemors
<michael@linuxmagic.com> wrote:
>On 2024-01-19 16:12, Peter wrote:
>> On 20/01/24 12:28, Joe Acquisto wrote:
>>> I noticed that many places in the documentation and in examples
gleaned from the wilderness, refer to the LDA protocol when
discussing sieve.
>>>
>>> The documentation also mentions that lmtp is preferred over lda,
and seems to say in places that sieve will operate without issue in
either case.
>>>
>>> Does it matter to sieve implementation if one uses only lmtp?
>>
>> LDA is older, think of LMTP as a more modern replacement. LDA has
to launch a separate process and process one message at a time. LMTP
maintains a running service and can stream multiple messages in a
single connection, therefore LMTP is a lot more efficient.
>>
>> You will see a lot of bad advice on the internet, or old outdated
advice. Tutorials that use LDA is an example of old, outdated
advice.
>>
>> Sieve itself doesn't care which one you use, but there are other
reasons to prefer LMTP.
>
>Just wish LMTP would not end up with duplicate Return-Path headers..
Duplicate return path headers? I don't see them on my system. All
mail is sent from postfix to dovecot with lmtp
--
Christian Kivalo
_______________________________________________
dovecot mailing list -- dovecot@dovecot.org
To unsubscribe send an email to dovecot-leave@dovecot.org-- Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 214-642-9640 (c) E-Mail: larryrtx@gmail.com US Mail: 5708 Sabbia Dr, Round Rock, TX 78665-2106
Christian Kivalo skrev den 2024-01-21 02:08:
Just wish LMTP would not end up with duplicate Return-Path headers.. Duplicate return path headers? I don't see them on my system. All mail is sent from postfix to dovecot with lmtp
it simply works better with lda ? :)
return-path is std postfix envelope sender pseudo header, bugs ?
Quoting Benny Pedersen me@junc.eu:
Christian Kivalo skrev den 2024-01-21 02:08:
Just wish LMTP would not end up with duplicate Return-Path headers.. Duplicate return path headers? I don't see them on my system. All
mail is sent from postfix to dovecot with lmtpit simply works better with lda ? :)
return-path is std postfix envelope sender pseudo header, bugs ?
it's not a pseudo header, it is defined starting in rfc-822, as to be
added at time of delievery.
The LDA should add it, postfix lda add it (virtual/local) and dovecots
do also (lda/lmtp)
I have used most postfix versions from 2.1 to 3.8 and dovecot lda and
lmtp and haven't have never seen duplicate headers
On 2024-01-21 04:43, Patrick Domack via dovecot wrote:
Quoting Benny Pedersen me@junc.eu:
Christian Kivalo skrev den 2024-01-21 02:08:
Just wish LMTP would not end up with duplicate Return-Path headers.. Duplicate return path headers? I don't see them on my system. All mail is sent from postfix to dovecot with lmtp
it simply works better with lda ? :)
return-path is std postfix envelope sender pseudo header, bugs ?
it's not a pseudo header, it is defined starting in rfc-822, as to be added at time of delievery.
The LDA should add it, postfix lda add it (virtual/local) and dovecots do also (lda/lmtp)
I have used most postfix versions from 2.1 to 3.8 and dovecot lda and lmtp and haven't have never seen duplicate headers
Maybe it is just a Zimbra thing.. but we definitely see this occurring in the wild.. Maybe just poor configuration, but of course as per RFC, to be clear, is only supposed to be added by the 'final' delivery mechanism.
So, the logic that implies duplicate Return-Path either indicates a broken system, looping issue, or email replay fails in those situations.
Postfix adds...
Return-path: <REDACT> Envelope-to: <REDACT> Delivery-date: Fri, 06 Oct 2023 08:56:07 -0300 <Trace Headers>
After which it get handled by lmtp, which adds the following..
Return-Path: <REDACT> Delivered-To: <REDACT> Received: from <SVR NAME> by <SVR NAME> with LMTP id CMvDLNf1H2UcHQAAJRWI5g (envelope-from <REDACT>) for <REDACT>; Fri, 06 Oct 2023 08:56:07 -0300
I guess this is a double issue, postfix should know that in this case, it is not the final delivery, lmtp is.. and lmtp should probably either remove the previous Return-Path, or copy that to a new header.. since it was not supposed to be there (but that has ramifications too.
-- "Catch the Magic of Linux..."
Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc. Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca "LinuxMagic" a Reg. TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd.
604-682-0300 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada
If postfix is adding it, your not using lmtp.
Only virtual and local adds it in postfix, lmtp is a symlink to smtp
and does not add that header.
If your somehow delivering the mail through local, then forwarding it
again via lmtp, that would be a bad thing.
Maybe look how you have spam/virus/... configured? Are they configured
in some kind of loopback config using a lda that it shouldn't be
using? I do know in older postfix versions (I haven't tested it in
3.x) if an email came into my postfix server with a return-path
header, postfix would strip it out before delivering it via lmtp/smtp
Quoting Michael Peddemors michael@linuxmagic.com:
On 2024-01-21 04:43, Patrick Domack via dovecot wrote:
Quoting Benny Pedersen me@junc.eu:
Christian Kivalo skrev den 2024-01-21 02:08:
Just wish LMTP would not end up with duplicate Return-Path headers.. Duplicate return path headers? I don't see them on my system. All
mail is sent from postfix to dovecot with lmtpit simply works better with lda ? :)
return-path is std postfix envelope sender pseudo header, bugs ?
it's not a pseudo header, it is defined starting in rfc-822, as to
be added at time of delievery.The LDA should add it, postfix lda add it (virtual/local) and
dovecots do also (lda/lmtp)I have used most postfix versions from 2.1 to 3.8 and dovecot lda
and lmtp and haven't have never seen duplicate headersMaybe it is just a Zimbra thing.. but we definitely see this
occurring in the wild.. Maybe just poor configuration, but of
course as per RFC, to be clear, is only supposed to be added by the
'final' delivery mechanism.So, the logic that implies duplicate Return-Path either indicates a
broken system, looping issue, or email replay fails in those
situations.Postfix adds...
Return-path: <REDACT> Envelope-to: <REDACT> Delivery-date: Fri, 06 Oct 2023 08:56:07 -0300 <Trace Headers>
After which it get handled by lmtp, which adds the following..
Return-Path: <REDACT> Delivered-To: <REDACT> Received: from <SVR NAME> by <SVR NAME> with LMTP id CMvDLNf1H2UcHQAAJRWI5g (envelope-from <REDACT>) for <REDACT>; Fri, 06 Oct 2023 08:56:07 -0300
I guess this is a double issue, postfix should know that in this
case, it is not the final delivery, lmtp is.. and lmtp should
probably either remove the previous Return-Path, or copy that to a
new header.. since it was not supposed to be there (but that has
ramifications too.-- "Catch the Magic of Linux..."
Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc. Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca "LinuxMagic" a Reg. TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd.
604-682-0300 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada
dovecot mailing list -- dovecot@dovecot.org To unsubscribe send an email to dovecot-leave@dovecot.org
On 2024-01-21 09:29, Michael Peddemors wrote:
On 2024-01-21 04:43, Patrick Domack via dovecot wrote:
Quoting Benny Pedersen me@junc.eu:
Christian Kivalo skrev den 2024-01-21 02:08:
Just wish LMTP would not end up with duplicate Return-Path headers.. Duplicate return path headers? I don't see them on my system. All mail is sent from postfix to dovecot with lmtp
it simply works better with lda ? :)
return-path is std postfix envelope sender pseudo header, bugs ?
it's not a pseudo header, it is defined starting in rfc-822, as to be added at time of delievery.
The LDA should add it, postfix lda add it (virtual/local) and dovecots do also (lda/lmtp)
I have used most postfix versions from 2.1 to 3.8 and dovecot lda and lmtp and haven't have never seen duplicate headers
Maybe it is just a Zimbra thing.. but we definitely see this occurring in the wild.. Maybe just poor configuration, but of course as per RFC, to be clear, is only supposed to be added by the 'final' delivery mechanism.
So, the logic that implies duplicate Return-Path either indicates a broken system, looping issue, or email replay fails in those situations.
Postfix adds...
Return-path: <REDACT> Envelope-to: <REDACT> Delivery-date: Fri, 06 Oct 2023 08:56:07 -0300 <Trace Headers>
After which it get handled by lmtp, which adds the following..
Return-Path: <REDACT> Delivered-To: <REDACT> Received: from <SVR NAME> by <SVR NAME> with LMTP id CMvDLNf1H2UcHQAAJRWI5g (envelope-from <REDACT>) for <REDACT>; Fri, 06 Oct 2023 08:56:07 -0300
I guess this is a double issue, postfix should know that in this case, it is not the final delivery, lmtp is.. and lmtp should probably either remove the previous Return-Path, or copy that to a new header.. since it was not supposed to be there (but that has ramifications too.
Also just observed in DirectAdmin, Exim->LMTP as well, but since this is a bit off topic for this list, just mentioning it quickly..
Return-Path: john@sendingdomain.com Delivered-To: recip@recipdomain.com Received: from <LOCALHOSTNAME> by <LOCALHOSTNAME> with LMTP id IdtjNTOesWWKyQUA9oBGDw (envelope-from john@sendingdomain.com) for recip@recipdomain.com; Wed, 24 Jan 2024 15:33:07 -0800 Return-path: john@sendingdomain.com Envelope-to: recip@recipdomain.com Delivery-date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 15:33:07 -0800 Received: from mail.remote.com ([REMOTE_IP]) by <LOCALHOSTNAME> with esmtp (Exim 4.97.1) (envelope-from john@sendingdomain.com) id 1rSmjz-00000001amd-3RDT for recip@recipdomain.com; Wed, 24 Jan 2024 15:33:07 -0800
-- "Catch the Magic of Linux..."
Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc. Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca "LinuxMagic" a Reg. TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd.
604-682-0300 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada
Thanks for the reassurance. It was a reach, hoping for some straw to grasp regarding the managesieve 4190 failure to bind.
On 1/19/24 18:28, Joe Acquisto wrote:
I noticed that many places in the documentation and in examples gleaned from the wilderness, refer to the LDA protocol when discussing sieve.
The documentation also mentions that lmtp is preferred over lda, and seems to say in places that sieve will operate without issue in either case.
Does it matter to sieve implementation if one uses only lmtp?
dovecot mailing list -- dovecot@dovecot.org To unsubscribe send an email to dovecot-leave@dovecot.org
participants (7)
-
Benny Pedersen
-
Christian Kivalo
-
Joe Acquisto
-
Larry Rosenman
-
Michael Peddemors
-
Patrick Domack
-
Peter