http://dovecot.org/releases/1.0/dovecot-1.0.3.tar.gz http://dovecot.org/releases/1.0/dovecot-1.0.3.tar.gz.sig
- deliver: v1.0.2's bounce fix caused message to be always saved to
INBOX even if Sieve script had discard, reject or redirect commands.
- LDAP: auth_bind=yes and empty auth_bind_userdn leaked memory
- ACL plugin: If user was given i (insert) right for a mailbox, but
not all s/t/w (seen, deleted, other flags) rights, COPY and APPEND
commands weren't supposed to allow saving those flags. This is
technically a security fix, but it's unlikely this caused problems
for anyone.
- ACL plugin: i (insert) right didn't work unless user was also given
l (lookup) right.
- Solaris: Fixed filesystem quota for autofs mounts.On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 01:22:59PM +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote:
http://dovecot.org/releases/1.0/dovecot-1.0.3.tar.gz http://dovecot.org/releases/1.0/dovecot-1.0.3.tar.gz.sig
No dovecot-sieve-1.0.3 tarball (yet)?
GeertOn Wed, 2007-08-01 at 13:04 +0200, Geert Hendrickx wrote:
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 01:22:59PM +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote:
http://dovecot.org/releases/1.0/dovecot-1.0.3.tar.gz http://dovecot.org/releases/1.0/dovecot-1.0.3.tar.gz.sig
No dovecot-sieve-1.0.3 tarball (yet)?
1.0.2 works just fine with it. The version numbers just have happened to be the same earlier.
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 02:41:44PM +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote:
1.0.2 works just fine with it. The version numbers just have happened to be the same earlier.
Is this documented somewhere? Or how do we know which dovecot-sieve version matches which dovecot version(s)? I thought they always had to be the same...
Otherwise you could just create dovecot-sieve-1.0.3.tar.gz as a symlink to dovecot-sieve-1.0.2.tar.gz...
GeertOn Wed, 2007-08-01 at 14:21 +0200, Geert Hendrickx wrote:
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 02:41:44PM +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote:
1.0.2 works just fine with it. The version numbers just have happened to be the same earlier.
Is this documented somewhere?
I guess download page would be the only place where people would actually read that, but it seems a bit wrong place for it. :)
Or how do we know which dovecot-sieve version matches which dovecot version(s)? I thought they always had to be the same...
No, you can use any Sieve plugin v1.0.x with any Dovecot v1.0.y.
Timo Sirainen wrote:
http://dovecot.org/releases/1.0/dovecot-1.0.3.tar.gz http://dovecot.org/releases/1.0/dovecot-1.0.3.tar.gz.sig
Thank you!
-- Leroy
any one have debian etch package for this ? :)
On 8/1/2007, "Timo Sirainen" tss@iki.fi wrote:
http://dovecot.org/releases/1.0/dovecot-1.0.3.tar.gz http://dovecot.org/releases/1.0/dovecot-1.0.3.tar.gz.sig
- deliver: v1.0.2's bounce fix caused message to be always saved to INBOX even if Sieve script had discard, reject or redirect commands.
- LDAP: auth_bind=yes and empty auth_bind_userdn leaked memory
- ACL plugin: If user was given i (insert) right for a mailbox, but not all s/t/w (seen, deleted, other flags) rights, COPY and APPEND commands weren't supposed to allow saving those flags. This is technically a security fix, but it's unlikely this caused problems for anyone.
- ACL plugin: i (insert) right didn't work unless user was also given l (lookup) right.
- Solaris: Fixed filesystem quota for autofs mounts.
kakuz2@pinky.frank-behrens.de wrote on 2 Aug 2007 11:40:
any one have debian etch package for this ? :)
Who are you? You are not somebody @pinky.frank-behrens.de, because that's me. Your email shows:
Received: from sagat.suryasoft.net (unknown [202.148.14.20]) by dovecot.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BDF5FA8980 for dovecot@dovecot.org; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 04:41:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sagat.suryasoft.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 874B6C077D for dovecot@dovecot.org; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 11:41:02 +0700 (WIT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at sagat.suryasoft.net Received: from sagat.suryasoft.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (sagat.suryaoffice.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hG6dfTyx9sNf for dovecot@dovecot.org; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 11:40:50 +0700 (WIT) Received: by sagat.suryasoft.net (Postfix, from userid 33) id 7980EC0B11; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 11:40:50 +0700 (WIT) To: dovecot@dovecot.org Received: from 10.26.5.250 (auth. user kakuz2@localhost) by 10.26.5.112 with HTTP; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 04:40:50 +0000 X-Mailer: IlohaMail/0.8.14 (On: 10.26.5.112) Message-ID: Azpf7uEV.1186029650.4022870.kakuz2@localhost In-Reply-To: 1185963779.29782.57.camel@hurina From: kakuz2@pinky.frank-behrens.de
Regards, Frank
Frank Behrens, Osterwieck, Germany PGP-key 0x5B7C47ED on public servers available.
On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 15:09 +0200, Frank Behrens wrote:
kakuz2@pinky.frank-behrens.de wrote on 2 Aug 2007 11:40:
any one have debian etch package for this ? :)
Who are you? You are not somebody @pinky.frank-behrens.de, because that's me. Your email shows:
Heh. Looks like his MTA is misconfigured to not qualify localhost to something saner, and yours is misconfigured to qualify localhost to your pinky hostname even on incoming mail. He shows up as kakuz2@localhost for me.
johannes
Johannes Berg johannes@sipsolutions.net wrote on 2 Aug 2007 15:18:
something saner, and yours is misconfigured to qualify localhost to your pinky hostname even on incoming mail. He shows up as kakuz2@localhost for me.
Thanks for this explanation. So I believe I should check my mailserver.
Regards, Frank
Frank Behrens, Osterwieck, Germany PGP-key 0x5B7C47ED on public servers available.
On 8/2/07, Frank Behrens frank@pinky.sax.de wrote:
kakuz2@pinky.frank-behrens.de wrote on 2 Aug 2007 11:40:
any one have debian etch package for this ? :)
Who are you? You are not somebody @pinky.frank-behrens.de, because that's me.
It's someone who sent a message without a full return address in the From: field, so each receiving system filled it in. (I got it as kakuz2@localhost.cesmail.net.) Based on the rest of the message I would expect it to actually be from kakuz2@suryasoft.net.
Jim
participants (7)
-
Frank Behrens
-
Geert Hendrickx
-
Jim Trigg
-
Johannes Berg
-
kakuz2＠localhost
-
Leroy van Logchem
-
Timo Sirainen