- dovecot - dovecot.org

[Dovecot] User keywords limit to 26
by Arthur Pétry 06 Nov '07

06 Nov '07

Hi, I'm planning to use dovecot 1.0.5 for a webmail using a lot of user- defined tags. Recently, I just saw the limit of 26 of them when messages are stored in maildir format. This is an important issue for me, since I didn't find how to remove a flag from the dovecot-keywords database. Is there any plan to get rid of the keywords limit ? Or perhaps the new dbox storage format can fix that ? By the way, the comportement of Dovecot when we try to add a new flag while the limit is exceeded is strange : (C: is client and S: Dovecot) The store of the flags is ok : C: RUBY0094 UID STORE 89 +FLAGS (test_0 test_1 test_2 test_3 test_4 test_5 test_6 test_7 test_8 test_9 test_10 test_11 test_12 test_13 test_14 test_15 test_16 test_17 test_18 test_19 test_20 test_21 test_22 test_23 test_24 test_25 test_26) S: * 81 FETCH (UID 89 FLAGS (\Seen test_1 test_2 test_3 test_4 test_5 test_6 test_7 test_8 test_9 test_10 test_11 test_12 test_13 test_14 test_15 test_16 test_17 test_18 test_19 test_20 test_21 test_22 test_23 test_24 test_25 test_26 test_0)) S: RUBY0094 OK Store completed. And then when we fetch them, dovecot reply 2 times. The first time with all the flags, and the second time with only the 26 flags stored in maildir. (I suppose Dovecot try to sync the flags when we fetch it) : C: RUBY0095 UID FETCH 89 FLAGS S: * 81 FETCH (FLAGS (\Seen test_1 test_2 test_3 test_4 test_5 test_6 test_7 test_8 test_9 test_10 test_11 test_12 test_13 test_14 test_15 test_16 test_17 test_18 test_19 test_20 test_21 test_22 test_23 test_24 test_25 test_26 test_0) UID 89) S: * 81 FETCH (FLAGS (\Seen test_1 test_2 test_3 test_4 test_5 test_6 test_7 test_8 test_9 test_10 test_11 test_12 test_13 test_14 test_15 test_16 test_17 test_18 test_19 test_20 test_21 test_22 test_23 test_24 test_25 test_0)) S: RUBY0095 OK Fetch completed.

2 1

[Dovecot] Sent vs Sent Items
by Ed W 06 Nov '07

06 Nov '07

Religious wars about which is "best" aside - some mail clients seem to default to using "Sent Items" folder for saving sent mail, and others (many) default to "Sent". Seems that in the interests of compatibility and "doing the right thing" (tm) that a symlink from one folder to the other name would ensure that either default would give the same result (in a mixed client setup)? However, I wonder if someone has already written a plugin to do something simple like this? More generally I guess it's folder aliasing, so that Sent == Sent Items and perhaps there are also synonyms for Drafts/Templates? Anyone got any thoughts on this simple idea? (The prob with sym links is a) creating them at mailbox setup time and b) what happens when someone tries to delete the folder...) Cheers Ed W

6 6

[Dovecot] MySQL-SSL
by xyon 06 Nov '07

06 Nov '07

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello all, I've been running dovecot authenticating against a local MySQL database, but it has come time to implement it with a remote database. Instead of using stunnel, I'd rather take advantage of MySQL's native SSL support. I didn't know if this was possible with dovecot, and if it was, what config changes I might need to get it going. I found the below page/patch from some time ago and tried to use the ssl_key and ssl_cert directives in /etc/dovecot-sql.conf, but it didn't seem to recognize them (perhaps I need to compile mysql-ssl support into dovecot manually?): http://www.dovecot.org/list/dovecot-cvs/2004-July/003003.html Also, I noticed a need for ssl_ca and ssl_ca_path but am unfamiliar with how to generate what's needed if these options are required. FYI, dovecot 1.0.7 is running on CentOS 4.5, using rpm from ATrpms: http://dl.atrpms.net/el4-i386/atrpms/stable/dovecot-1.0.7-0_63.el4.i386.rpm Thanks for any advice or documentation pointers you can provide. Have a great evening everyone! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHL85sJ6p9X8nw/2oRAr9JAJ9u5XTOXqqUvVFE5HqEAr4HzC2juwCgob5o 7usezyZdBjP44wEYQKUg/fQ= =tv5y -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

[Dovecot] deliver to subfolder?
by Ralf Hildebrandt 05 Nov '07

05 Nov '07

Can dovecot's deliver deliver a mail to a certain subfolder within a user's mailbox? I was thinking of something along the lines of: deliver -m subfolder But what is the correct syntax to deliver to "spam", subfolder of INBOX? deliver -m spam < message.txt deliver -m INBOX.spam < message.txt -- Ralf Hildebrandt (Ralf.Hildebrandt(a)charite.de) plonk(a)charite.de Postfix - Einrichtung, Betrieb und Wartung Tel. +49 (0)30-450 570-155 http://www.arschkrebs.de

2 1

[Dovecot] truncated messages / attachments
by Markus Stumpf 05 Nov '07

05 Nov '07

I am currently running dovecot-1.1.beta6 (at least beta5 also had the problem) Retrieving some messages via IMAP gets them truncated and it also happens with retrieving attachments (message is HTML part of multipart-alternative, attachments are at least some PDF files). A user reported she is rather sure one of the messages was ok, before moving it to some other folder. In the filesystem the messages are there in full length. It happens with Outlook as well as with Thunderbird. We're using Maildir. After upgrading from beta5 to beta6 I have removed all dovecot.index* files of a folder with a defect message. This didn't make a difference. (Thought it could be related to some indexing problem). Any one else seeing this? \Maex -- Markus Stumpf

2 2

[Dovecot] Couldn't init INBOX: Can't sync mailbox: Messages keep getting expunged
by Tom Sommer 05 Nov '07

05 Nov '07

After updating Dovecot, one of my servers keep spamming these errors in the log: dovecot: Nov 03 14:14:18 Error: POP3(foo(a)bar.com): Getting size of message UID=4402 failed dovecot: Nov 03 14:14:18 Error: POP3(foo(a)bar.com): Getting size of message UID=4402 failed dovecot: Nov 03 14:14:18 Error: POP3(foo(a)bar.com): Couldn't init INBOX: Can't sync mailbox: Messages keep getting expunged The funny thing is the mailbox is empty, there are no mails in the folder that should be needed to be parsed It was perfectly fine before I updated, and the permissions on the folder is correct. It only affects some mailboxes as well. Any ideas? // Tom

3 5

Re: [Dovecot] Dovecot write activity (mostly 1.1.x)
by mikkel＠euro123.dk 05 Nov '07

05 Nov '07

On Sun, November 4, 2007 4:32 pm, Timo Sirainen wrote: >> >> I didn't know that mail_nfs_index=yes resulted in a forced chown. >> How come that's necessary with NFS but not on local disks? >> > > It's used to flush NFS attribute cache. Enabling it allows you to use > multiple servers to access the same maildir at the same time while still > having attribute cache enabled (v1.0 required actime=0). If you don't need > this (and it's better if you don't), then just set the mail_nfs_* to "no" > and it works faster. > >> By the way I misinformed you about fsync_disable=yes. >> It was like that before i upgraded to v1.1, but v1.1 requires >> fsync_disable=no when mail_nfs_index=true so I had to disable it. > > So you use ZFS on the NFS server, but Dovecot is using NFS on client > side? The fsyncs then just mean that the data is sent to NFS server, not a > real fsync on ZFS. > Thanks a lot for the help - this changed a lot! Dist writes fell to about 1/3 of before. I guess the reason is that ZFS can now make use if it's caching capabilities. Delivers activity is completely random since it's impossible to load balance a connection based on the e-mail recipient, since only the ip is known at the load balancing point. Therefore I have fsync_disable=no for deliver. It's easy to force the clients using imap/pop3 to the same server since it can be based on the ip only. Therefore I have fsync_disable=yes for imap/pop3. This changed everything. Now there's a real performance gain upgrading from 1.0.x to 1.1.x. About two or three times less disk activity overall (reads were already improved) for both reads and writes. Thats pretty neat!

1 0

[Dovecot] Version 1.1beta 6 and OS X Leopard (10.5)
by Jerry Yeager 05 Nov '07

05 Nov '07

Just a quick note: The new 1.1-b6 is working fine on OS X 10.5.

1 0

Re: [Dovecot] Testing with some Unstable
by Jeff Grossman 04 Nov '07

04 Nov '07

Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > [SNIPPED] > > actually, assuming you now have unstable in your sources.list, those > are packages currently installed for which there are updates available > (probably unstable updates...). Be careful or you'll end up farther > than you want. > > I can't answer to the specifics of sendmail and libmilter, but so long > as you have unstable in your sources.list, those kept-back packages > will appear (unless you upgrade them, of course). Probably, on the > assumption that sendmail and libmilter is sufficient for your needs, > you should change you sources.list back once those two upgrades are > done. > > A > I have "APT::Default-Release "testing";" in my apt.conf file. Is it still advised to remove the unstable lines from my sources.list file even though I have the above in my apt.conf file? Thanks for you help. Jeff

1 1

[Dovecot] Dovecot write activity (mostly 1.1.x)
by mikkel＠euro123.dk 04 Nov '07

04 Nov '07

Im experiencing write activity thats somewhat different from my previous qmail/courier-imap/Maildir setup. This more outspoken in v.1.1.x than v1.0.x (Im using Maildir). Write activity is about half that of read activity when measuring throughput. But when measuring operations its about 5-7 times as high (measured with zpool iostat on ZFS). I think this might be due to the many small updates to index and cache files. Anyway since writing is much more demanding to the disk than reads dovecots ends up being slower (only a little though) than my old qmail/courier-imap/Maildir was. And the old setup didnt even benefit from indexes like Dovecot does. (What I mean saying slower is that it can service fewer users before it hits the wall). Of course theres also lots of benefits using Dovecot. Im just wondering whether this was a thing that should be focused on for later versions (maybe writes could be grouped together or something like that). Dovecot is very cheap on the CPU side so the only real limit in terms of scalability is the storage. Regards, Mikkel

2 6