- dovecot - dovecot.org

[Dovecot] 1.0-test22 - maildir fixed?
by Timo Sirainen 02 Jul '04

02 Jul '04

http://dovecot.org/test/ Well, remember when I said: > Here you go, maildir syncing problems finally fixed (I hope). Well, > except there's this "new-dir-only syncing" optimization which I'm not > really sure if it works as it should. Just before I found the expunge bug in index, I was trying to fix the new-dir-only syncing because the code looked wrong. Then I figured out the indexing problem and thought maybe this one wasn't broken after all, and then forgot about it. Finally after lots of debugging, I came to same conclusion again. The code was wrong, and cause of the remaining "Maildir sync: UID < next_uid (312 < 3)" errors. So, please try and see if you still can break this release. Other changes include some crashfixes for cache file and fix for mbox which kept constantly rewriting headers for \recent messages if we had selected the mailbox as read-only (EXAMINE, STATUS).

11 30

[Dovecot] building dovecot 1.0 test19 over fc1
by Luis Miguel Cruz 02 Jul '04

02 Jul '04

[root@fc1-devel tmp]# rpmbuild -ta dovecot-1.0-test19.tar.gz error: line 7: Illegal char '-' in version: Version: 1.0-test19 Seems to be an error into the .spec file I am not sure. I will check it. Did anyone get this problem in the past? Thanks.

2 1

[Dovecot] 1.0-test23 and caching decisions
by Timo Sirainen 30 Jun '04

30 Jun '04

http://dovecot.org/test/ mbox fixes mostly. Began some other things, but none of them actually work yet: - Use X-UIDL header in mboxes for POP3 UIDL list - Cache file compression - Some cleverness for cache file for figuring out what to cache Well, I might as well explain the last one now. Users can be divided to three groups: 1. Most users will use only a single IMAP client which caches everything locally. For these users it's quite pointless to do any kind of caching as it only wastes disk space. That might also mean more disk I/O. 2. Some users use multiple IMAP clients which cache everything locally. These could benefit from caching until all clients have fetched the data. After that it's useless. 3. Some clients don't do permanent local caching at all. For example Pine and webmails. These clients would benefit from caching everything. Some locally caching clients might also access some data from server again, such as when searching messages. They could benefit from caching only these fields. After thinking about these a while, I figured out that people who care about performance most will be using the upcoming Dovecot LDA anyway which updates the indexes/cache immediately. In that case even the first user group would benefit from caching the same way as second group. LDA reads the mail anyway, so it might as well extract some information about it and store them into cache. So, group 1. and 2. could be optimally implemented by keeping things cached only for a while. I thought a week would be good. When cache file is compressed, everything older than week will be dropped. But how to figure out if user is in group 3? One quite easy rule would be to see if client is accessing messages older than a week. But with only that rule we might have already dropped useful cached data. It's not very nice if we have to read and cache it twice. Most locally caching clients always fetch new messages (all but body) when they see them. They fetch them in ascending order. Noncaching clients might fetch messages in pretty much any order, as they usually don't fetch everything they can, only what's visible in screen. Some will use server side sorting/threading which also makes messages to be fetched in random order. Second rule would then be that if a session doesn't fetch messages in ascending order, the fetched field type will be permanently cached. So, we have three caching decisions: 1. Don't cache: Clients have never wanted the field 2. Cache temporarily: Clients want this only once 3. Cache permanently: Clients want this more than once Different mailboxes have different decisions. Different fields have different decisions. There are some problems, such as if a client accesses message older than a week, we can't know if user just started using a new client which is just filling it's local cache for the first time. Or it might be a client user hasn't just used for over a week. In these cases we shouldn't have marked the field to be permanently cached. User might also switch clients from non-caching to caching. So we should re-evaluate our caching decisions from time to time. This is done by checking the above rules constantly and marking when was the last time the decision was right. If decision hasn't matched for two months, it's changed. I picked two months because people go to at least one month vacations where they might still be reading mails, but with different clients.

1 0

[Dovecot] Locked index file
by Kevin Cramer 30 Jun '04

30 Jun '04

I have docevot 0.99.10.6 installed on OpenBSD 3.5 and I'm using it with Squirrelmail. I tried to empty my Trash folder and it timed out. It looks like the process or thread died but the lock wasn't removed: Jun 25 09:16:30 plato imap(kevin): Timeout while waiting for release of shared fcntl() lock for index file /home/kevin/Maildir/.Trash/.imap.index How can I free this lock? I have tried stopping and re-starting dovecot already but that didn't help. Also, is there something I should do to prevent this in the future? The OpenBSD package sets the default locking to fcntl for mbox. I'm not sure if that is the setting that also controls the locking mechanism on the index files. Thanks, Kevin

2 3

[Dovecot] ldap auth problems
by Karl Latiss 30 Jun '04

30 Jun '04

I have previously configured dovecot with ldap auth on a fedora setup with no problems. Now, using RHEL 3 with the same config I get: dovecot: Jun 30 17:46:07 Error: Auth process died too early - shutting down dovecot: Jun 30 17:46:07 Error: child 16780 (auth) killed with signal 11 pop3-login: Jun 30 17:46:07 Fatal: fd_send(-1) failed: Broken pipe imap-login: Jun 30 17:46:07 Fatal: fd_send(-1) failed: Broken pipe This doesn't happen when using other kinds of authentication, eg pam The ldap directory is working fine for other apps so I'm pretty sure that's not it. I'm using the rpm from dag's repository and even re-compiled to ensure ldap support is there. Any clues? -- Karl Latiss <karl(a)designit.com.au> designIT

2 1

[Dovecot] 1.0 Maildir/mbox
by Paul Adams 29 Jun '04

29 Jun '04

Just to confirm, and sorry if I've missed this info somewhere in the flurry of messages: dovecot 1.0 will be able to support maildir and mbox users simultaneously? Paul

2 1

Re: [Dovecot] phpGroupWare
by Avery 29 Jun '04

29 Jun '04

I am currently using SQ mail also. Was wondering though about phpGroupWare. Brook Humphrey said: > On Friday 25 June 2004 08:46 pm, Avery wrote: >> Anyone here using phpGroupWare with dovecot? Does anyone know if it is >> possible? >> >> Thanks > I use squirllmail and it works great. > > -- > -~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~- > Brook Humphrey > Mobile PC Medic, 420 1st, Cheney, WA 99004, 509-235-9107 > http://www.webmedic.net, bah(a)webmedic.net, bah(a)linux-mandrake.com > Holiness unto the Lord > -~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~- > > -- Avery

1 0

[Dovecot] Dovecot on Redhat GFS
by Tomi Hakala 28 Jun '04

28 Jun '04

Now that Redhat released GFS to GLP has anyone gotten around to test Dovecot on top of that? -- Tomi Hakala

1 0

[Dovecot] 0.99.10.6 -imap flag update problem still present
by Hauke Fath 28 Jun '04

28 Jun '04

Hi, the email status problem that I reported for Dovecot 0.99.10.5 on June 3rd does still show up in 0.99.10.6. Quoting myself: (1) When new mail is delivered to the inbox, the last read mail(s) change(s) to "unread". Clients: Eudora 6 (Mac), Mozilla 1.6 (NetBSD, Linux, Win XP), MS Outlook. (2) When you attempt to move mails from the inbox to another folder with Mozilla (1.6 on win32, Linux, NetBSD), they are not removed from the inbox, effectively performing a copy instead of a move. And, while I am at it, (3) I see a regular log entry from a MS Outlook 2000 SP 3 Jun 3 10:26:23 bounce imap-login: SSL_read() syscall failed: EOF [130.83.XXX.XXX] The setup here: OS NetBSD 2.0beta, MTA sendmail 8.12.11, LDA maildrop 1.3.9, dovecot 0.99.10.6, OpenSSL 0.9.7d Any ideas? My users are starting to nag... hauke -- Institut für Nachrichtentechnik /~\ The ASCII Ribbon Campaign FG Signalverarbeitung \ / No HTML/RTF in email TU Darmstadt X No Word docs in email Ruf +49-6151-16-3281, Fax -3778 / \ Respect for open standards

2 7

[Dovecot] Mailbox archiving
by Leslie Viljoen 28 Jun '04

28 Jun '04

Hi all! I have a strange problem with Dovecot - deleted messages never seem to get deleted on the server! Deleted messages just seem to get a 'T' at the end of them on the server and remain there, so user mail boxes continue to grow to incredible sizes. Is this a setting I must change somewhere? Must I delete these files manually? Leslie

3 2