- dovecot - dovecot.org

[Dovecot] Sieve, vacation, company (domain-wide) message possible?
by Charles Marcus 10 Sep '13

10 Sep '13

Hello, I've been using vacation.pl from postfixadmin for many years, and since the most recent modification that allows me to specify my own strings to test for for when NOT to send a message, I'm extremely happy with it (no more auto-responses to linked-in/facebook crap, etc)... But, there is one thing I'd like to be able to do that it can't do, and there hasn't been any positive response about implementing it, so I'm asking about if this is possible to do with sieve right now, and if not, how hard would it be to implement... What I'd like is to be able to set a company (domain-wide) auto-response for when our company is closed for holidays... more specifically, extra holidays (often the boss will close an extra day for an extra long weekend). He has asked more than once about setting an auto-response for *everyone* during these periods... Thanks, -- Best regards, */Charles/*

5 7

[Dovecot] Sieve Filter global vs user specific
by inkubus 10 Sep '13

10 Sep '13

Hi@all! I'm actually fighting to make sieve in dovecot work and made quite a success by now. However, I still fail at the following constellation: Background: I'm a Mail Admin of a small IT department and we are already using Dovecot as LDA with a filtering server. Any user can easily create filter rules that apply to him (to make it easier for my colleagues we use the Roundcube plugin for rule design). I can formulate global rules that apply to all. Individual users create their rules for redirectiong mails home (a la redirect: copy "users(a)theirhomes.de";) According to the policy of my company, certain file types (eg avi, mp4, mp3, wav, etc.) must NOT be sent out to the internet. But our phone system does INTERNALLY just that - receiving calls in absence of the user it sends mails with attachments MP3 (the spoken message). These mails must of course not be forwarded outside. I also created a global rule, which supresses the delivery of these mails (using the stop command), But after my global rule follows the user specific rule and the message ist sent anyway. QUESTION: Can cause dovecot somehow not to follow the user specific rules that apply to a message after going through my global ones? The mail has to remain directly in the inbox (and must not be forwarded by the user specific filter aftwerwards) My configuration: dovecot.conf (excerpt): plugin { sieve = /home/%n/.dovecot.sieve sieve_dir = /home/%n/.mailstore/sieve sieve_global_dir = /etc/dovecot/sieve/ sieve_before = /etc/dovecot/sieve/global } /etc/dovecot/sieve/global: require ["vacation","copy","fileinto","body","imap4flags"]; # rule:[Redirect] if anyof(header :contains "From" "f...ing.telefonanlage(a)firma.intern", header :contains "Subject" "Sprachnachricht") { stop; } user specific rules are as follows # rule:[Redirect] if true { redirect :copy "users(a)theirhomes.de"; } I hope my English is understandable (got quite a cold andfighting to keep my eyes open so my English is not the best today ;-) ) I'm sure the solution for this problem is a nobvious & simple one but I'm having my blond moments today... Any help would be appreciated! yours Sven P.S. Klar bin ich mir bewusst, dass einfach die Benutzerfilter aufgebohrt werden könnten. Da aber nicht alle Kollegen... sagen wir entsprechend firm... sind, würde ich den Pflegeaufwand gern gering halten und dieses Ausnehmen vo der weiterleitung zentralisieren. -- View this message in context: http://dovecot.2317879.n4.nabble.com/Sieve-Filter-global-vs-user-specific-t… Sent from the Dovecot mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

2 1

[Dovecot] Proxy and Master Config
by Regan Yelcich 10 Sep '13

10 Sep '13

I'm just sitting down to configure a Proxy & Master Dovecot setup with Postfix and virtual users. I have read plenty about how to configure Dovecot as a proxy, but I'm unclear what's required on the "master" end. Does the master need the -pop and -imap scripts? or does the proxy handle that and call -deliver on the master? Can anyone explain the basic setup so I get it right. Thanks.

1 0

Re: [Dovecot] Is dovecot locking properly?
by Joseph Tam 10 Sep '13

10 Sep '13

Scott Galambos writes: > Hello, I'm attempting to move form qpopper 4.1 to Dovecot 2.2.5 on > Linux. When a user checks POP mail qpopper seems to make a > .username.pop temporary file in the same /var/mail directory as the mbox > INBOX file. Watching what dovecot does I don't see this happening. Probably too quick (or perhaps you haven't configured dotlocking). Qpopper locks the INBOX when it creates a drop copy: this can be a time consuming operation, during which you can see the .$user.pop lock file. Dovecot is more intelligent: it doesn't create copies, and goes out of its way to avoid grautitous I/O. Most of the operations can be done by consulting the indices. However, I did contrive a situation to observe lock files being created. 1) Create large INBOX file test user (assuming mbox /inbox/testuser) 2a) In one window, run a shell loop monitor while : ; do ls -al /inbox/testuser.lock done 2b) In another window, create a POP3 session and do an operation that would require a lock: telnet pop-server 110 USER testuser PASS testpassword DELE 1 ... this still won't need locking -- not until ... QUIT If you use maildir format, it may still be too quick to catch. in this situation, you can process trace the pop3 worker process to verify a lock file is created. > Is this .pop file a lock file or just a temporary file? Temporary. If you have them lying around, qpopper crashed. Note: dovecot makes lockfiles of the form "$user.lock". > If its a temp file does dovecot do the same thing elsewhere? I'm > concerned dovecot is not locking properly and there will be mailbox > corruption, so I'm trying to get dovecot to mimic what qpopper does as > much as possible. By "mimic" you mean that locking works, but otherwise, you don't want dovecot to mimic qpopper: the former is much better. I have not had problems with users complaining about scrambled files. As I said, process trace your pop3 worker process if you need to verify the locking process. Joseph Tam <jtam.home(a)gmail.com>

1 0

[Dovecot] sieve vacation question
by Andreas Schulze 10 Sep '13

10 Sep '13

Hello Stephan, I love to use the vacation extension to build an echo service. I have not to worry about whether to answer or not if the sender is a list, postmaster, mailer-daemon or other crasy thing. But i like to echo the *complete headers* back. I did not found a solution with sieve yet. Is it really impossible? Thanks Andreas

2 2

[Dovecot] Is this odd?
by LuKreme 09 Sep '13

09 Sep '13

$ doveadm user kremels field value uid 1033 gid 1033 home /home/kremels mail maildir:~/Maildir system_groups_user kreme $ doveadm user user(a)virtual.example.com field value uid 89 gid 89 home /usr/local/virtual/user(a)virtual.example.com/ mail /usr/local/virtual/user(a)virtual.example.com mail_location /usr/local/virtual/user(a)virtual.example.com The local users doesn't have a mail_location set at all, and has a very different mail definition. This seem to be a side-effect of the fact that the home of the virtual user is the top level maildir, but should I set mail to maildir:~ ?? -- Where there is a party, everyone is there Everyone will leave at exactly the same time When this party is over it will start again But not been any different be exactly the same

2 2

[Dovecot] Is dovecot locking properly?
by Scott Galambos 09 Sep '13

09 Sep '13

Hello, I'm attempting to move form qpopper 4.1 to Dovecot 2.2.5 on Linux. When a user checks POP mail qpopper seems to make a .username.pop temporary file in the same /var/mail directory as the mbox INBOX file. Watching what dovecot does I don't see this happening. Is this .pop file a lock file or just a temporary file? If its a temp file does dovecot do the same thing elsewhere? I'm concerned dovecot is not locking properly and there will be mailbox corruption, so I'm trying to get dovecot to mimic what qpopper does as much as possible. I'm using procmail and its Locking strategies are: dotlocking, fcntl(), lockf(), flock(). I'm using sendmail too. I left dovecot's locking as the defaults. Thanks for any tips.

1 0

Re: [Dovecot] More fine-grained connection limitations?
by Joseph Tam 09 Sep '13

09 Sep '13

> There is the mail_max_userip_connections setting, which helps for > dealing with number of connections at any given time, but I'm looking > for something that will help deal with users who configure their mail > clients to connect too frequently. > > ... > > It would be really great if there were a way to tarpit those users to > slow them down, or send them an imap message saying they are connecting > to often and connections have been disabled for the next 5 minutes or > something. There might be an unintended consequence: I see connection spikes when users try to do a global string search across mailboxes. Joseph Tam <jtam.home(a)gmail.com>

1 0

[Dovecot] best practice to have sent mail folder on dovecot imap server
by Thomas Koch 08 Sep '13

08 Sep '13

I've already asked this here: http://serverfault.com/questions/533940/best-practice-to-have-sent-mail- folder-on-dovecot-imap-server Hi, when I add a mail account to KMail (or most other MUA I suppose) the sent mail folder is on the local machine and I don't have my sent mails on other machines. I'd like to have a sent mail folder in IMAP and I thought that there would already exist a standard or best practice how to set this up so that the mail is only transfered once to the MTA and from the MTA to the IMAP server. I even thought to remember an RFC related to this problem? It isn't that simple, is it? I'm using Exim. Regards, Thomas Koch

3 2

[Dovecot] More fine-grained connection limitations?
by Micah Anderson 07 Sep '13

07 Sep '13

There is the mail_max_userip_connections setting, which helps for dealing with number of connections at any given time, but I'm looking for something that will help deal with users who configure their mail clients to connect too frequently. For example, I've seen users who configured their clients to check (IMAP) mail every 3 seconds. This is far too frequent and puts unnecessary load on the server. Even once per minute seems excessive to me. It would be really great if there were a way to tarpit those users to slow them down, or send them an imap message saying they are connecting to often and connections have been disabled for the next 5 minutes or something. Micah ps - what happens to a user when they hit mail_mx_userip_connections? Further connections are just denied, or dropped?

1 0