[Dovecot] how to upgrade (update) the dovecot
fakessh
fakessh at fakessh.eu
Tue Oct 5 12:06:59 EEST 2010
hi folks and guys
I described in my blog (http://fakessh.eu/?p=150
http://fakessh.eu/?p=202 )the procedure for migrating from dovecot
1.2.11 to 2.0.0 there is the output of the 2 dovecot-n
I used rpm to update
Le mardi 05 octobre 2010 à 09:56 +0100, arif khwaja a écrit :
> Dear All,
> Is there any easy way to upgrade Dovecot like yum command? Or I have to delete the current and install the new version then change the setting?>
>
> I will appreciate if you can tell me the steps please?
>
> Best Regards
> Arif
>
> --- On Fri, 1/10/10, dovecot-request at dovecot.org <dovecot-request at dovecot.org> wrote:
>
> From: dovecot-request at dovecot.org <dovecot-request at dovecot.org>
> Subject: dovecot Digest, Vol 90, Issue 3
> To: dovecot at dovecot.org
> Date: Friday, 1 October, 2010, 15:25
>
> Send dovecot mailing list submissions to
> dovecot at dovecot.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://dovecot.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dovecot
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> dovecot-request at dovecot.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> dovecot-owner at dovecot.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of dovecot digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Dovecot v0.99.13-3 upgrade to 1.0.15-2 ?? (Noel Butler)
> 2. Re: how to upgrade dovecot (Noel Butler)
> 3. Re: Dovecot v0.99.13-3 upgrade to 1.0.15-2 ?? (Jerry)
> 4. Re: Dovecot v0.99.13-3 upgrade to 1.0.15-2 ?? (Jerry)
> 5. Re: how to upgrade dovecot (fakessh)
> 6. Re: Dovecot v0.99.13-3 upgrade to 1.0.15-2 ?? (Stan Hoeppner)
> 7. v1 ok, v2 not (Alberto)
> 8. Re: Possible bug with proxy in 2.0.4 (Ed W)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 22:37:25 +1000
> From: Noel Butler <noel.butler at ausics.net>
> Subject: Re: [Dovecot] Dovecot v0.99.13-3 upgrade to 1.0.15-2 ??
> To: dovecot at dovecot.org
> Message-ID: <1285936645.21841.19.camel at tardis>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 14:20 +0200, Jakob Curdes wrote:
>
>
> > All true, but there is a current 1.2.14 out there which should probably
> > be preferred ove a two-and-a-half year old 1.0.15.
> > Jakob
> >
>
> Indeed, but some people who use certain distros are scared shitless of
> using source packages and will insist on using a several yo version
> because thats all <insert distro X or Y here> provides, the 1.2 branch
> is rock solid stable and time proven, if distro X/Y only oifferes 1.0.x,
> well, that says a lot about distro X/Y, we all know who X 'n Y are,
> without mentioning names :)
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: face-smile.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 873 bytes
> Desc: not available
> Url : http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20101001/d1d05ea2/attachment-0001.png
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 22:40:41 +1000
> From: Noel Butler <noel.butler at ausics.net>
> Subject: Re: [Dovecot] how to upgrade dovecot
> To: dovecot at dovecot.org
> Message-ID: <1285936841.21841.23.camel at tardis>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 13:32 +0100, arif khwaja wrote:
>
> > Dear All,
> > I have Centos 5 and devecot 1.0.7 I want to upgrade it to the latest version. I will appreciate if any one can tell me how can I upgrade it please.
> >
> >
>
>
> use the source, luke :) from the website
>
> I suggest using 1.2.14, expect a couple teething problems depending on your setup for the 1.0 to 1.2
> changes in the config, but as to how you need it built, depends on how you are using it now.
>
> .
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: face-smile.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 873 bytes
> Desc: not available
> Url : http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20101001/19bf35d4/attachment-0001.png
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 08:53:58 -0400
> From: Jerry <dovecot.user at seibercom.net>
> Subject: Re: [Dovecot] Dovecot v0.99.13-3 upgrade to 1.0.15-2 ??
> To: dovecot at dovecot.org
> Message-ID: <20101001085358.6c8c3922 at scorpio>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 22:32:39 +1000
> Noel Butler <noel.butler at ausics.net> articulated:
>
> > really? wow how things must have changed in recent years, they used to
> > be so, well, debian like, but not quite as bad :)
>
> Touch?. The FreeBSD developers do have a bug up their ass regarding GPL
> licenses which has effectively slowed down the introduction of some new
> (better) software into the base system. This has reportedly led to
> sporadic problems with some newer applications being released into the
> FreeBSD ports system.
>
> All things considered though, they usually maintain software that is
> relatively up-to-date; i.e., Postfix for example. The developers version
> is always available and current in the ports system. Most other major
> applications follow that general protocol. New releases of Dovecot are
> always available, usually only a few days after being released. This
> 2.x version is not the norm though. It is, as you so clearly stated, a
> BETA version. I would like to see FreeBSED release it clearly marked as
> a BETA or DEVELOPERS version, aka "USE AT ON RISK". Doing so would
> allow it to receive more extensive testing while warning potential
> users of the risks involved.
>
> I would comment on Debian; however, I don't want to start a flame war.
>
> --
> Jerry ?
> Dovecot.user at seibercom.net
>
> Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
> Please do not ignore the Reply-To header.
> __________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 08:59:03 -0400
> From: Jerry <dovecot.user at seibercom.net>
> Subject: Re: [Dovecot] Dovecot v0.99.13-3 upgrade to 1.0.15-2 ??
> To: dovecot at dovecot.org
> Message-ID: <20101001085903.71a54c37 at scorpio>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 22:37:25 +1000
> Noel Butler <noel.butler at ausics.net> articulated:
>
> > Indeed, but some people who use certain distros are scared shitless of
> > using source packages and will insist on using a several yo version
> > because thats all <insert distro X or Y here> provides, the 1.2
> > branch is rock solid stable and time proven, if distro X/Y only
> > oifferes 1.0.x, well, that says a lot about distro X/Y, we all know
> > who X 'n Y are, without mentioning names :)
>
> Seriously, the weekend is upon use. Nothing like a good flame war over
> whose OS is superior.
>
> --
> Jerry ?
> Dovecot.user at seibercom.net
>
> Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
> Please do not ignore the Reply-To header.
> __________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 15:11:02 +0200
> From: fakessh <fakessh at fakessh.eu>
> Subject: Re: [Dovecot] how to upgrade dovecot
> To: Dovecot Mailing List <dovecot at dovecot.org>
> Message-ID: <201010011511.08456.fakessh at fakessh.eu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Le vendredi 1 octobre 2010 14:40, Noel Butler a ?crit?:
> > On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 13:32 +0100, arif khwaja wrote:
> > > Dear All,
> > > I have Centos 5 and devecot 1.0.7 I want to upgrade it to the latest
> > > version. I will appreciate if any one can tell me how can I upgrade it
> > > please.
> >
> > use the source, luke :) from the website
> >
> > I suggest using 1.2.14, expect a couple teething problems depending on your
> > setup for the 1.0 to 1.2 changes in the config, but as to how you need it
> > built, depends on how you are using it now.
> >
> > .
> I describe the procedure for migrating from 1.2.13 to 2.0.0 on my blog
> i quote dovecot -n for 1.2.11 and i quote dovecot -n for 2.0.0
> http://fakessh.eu/?p=150
> http://fakessh.eu/
> sign my blog if you desire
> --
> http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x092164A7
>
> gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-key 092164A7
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: not available
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 189 bytes
> Desc: not available
> Url : http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20101001/8ab7ec2c/attachment-0001.bin
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 08:35:54 -0500
> From: Stan Hoeppner <stan at hardwarefreak.com>
> Subject: Re: [Dovecot] Dovecot v0.99.13-3 upgrade to 1.0.15-2 ??
> To: dovecot at dovecot.org
> Message-ID: <4CA5E3BA.5050809 at hardwarefreak.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Jerry put forth on 10/1/2010 7:59 AM:
> > On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 22:37:25 +1000
> > Noel Butler <noel.butler at ausics.net> articulated:
> >
> >> Indeed, but some people who use certain distros are scared shitless of
> >> using source packages and will insist on using a several yo version
> >> because thats all <insert distro X or Y here> provides, the 1.2
> >> branch is rock solid stable and time proven, if distro X/Y only
> >> oifferes 1.0.x, well, that says a lot about distro X/Y, we all know
> >> who X 'n Y are, without mentioning names :)
> >
> > Seriously, the weekend is upon use. Nothing like a good flame war over
> > whose OS is superior.
>
> I've never understood the OS flame war mentality. Each OS has its
> strengths and its weaknesses. You pick your OS poison based on the
> strengths you desire, and live with the warts. Every OS has warts, some
> more than others, but they all have 'em.
>
> --
> Stan
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 16:09:35 +0200
> From: Alberto <alberto.fhd at gmail.com>
> Subject: [Dovecot] v1 ok, v2 not
> To: dovecot at dovecot.org
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTim0mxqoyicSBUxgTrCNbnDPWxgPpC5nWFOONDb5 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> hello everybody!
>
> This's my very first post in dovecot. I'm installing a new server for backup
> site, with qmail + vpopmail 5.4.32 + dovecot.
> Production server, more or less outdated, runs with Couier Imap, but
> everybody know the history..
> I've been fighting for several days...And no luck with version 2.0.4, 2.0.3
> neither.
> My first asumption was to review things thousand of times due to newbie
> condition...
> This morning I've tried version 1.2.14 and voila! , it works perfectly!
>
> The error log with version 2 was the famous unkown user one:
>
> dovecot: auth: vpopmail(test4 at adomain.com,10.206.16.10): unknown user
>
> test4 user worked perfectly with pop3...
>
> Just FYI, is this can help.
>
> Regards!
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 15:25:22 +0100
> From: Ed W <lists at wildgooses.com>
> Subject: Re: [Dovecot] Possible bug with proxy in 2.0.4
> To: Timo Sirainen <tss at iki.fi>
> Cc: dovecot at dovecot.org
> Message-ID: <4CA5EF52.5040503 at wildgooses.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> On 30/09/2010 18:48, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-09-30 at 08:08 +0100, Ed W wrote:
> >>> CRAM-MD5 doesn't work directly with proxying. It can't work, by CRAM-MD5 design. The only way to make it work is if your passdb lookup returns a password, either the user's actual password in plaintext or some master password, that the backends accepts with plaintext authentication.
> >> I'm not quite sure I understand the nuances of that?
> >>
> >> Yes I do have a passdb (on the remote machine) which returns a plain
> >> password. Actually since it's DB driven I have already returned all the
> >> information needed to auth the user on the proxying machine
> >>
> >> The password query is the same on both sides and it looks like:
> >>
> >> password_query = SELECT NULLIF(mail_host, '%l') as proxy,
> >> NULLIF(mail_host, '%l') as host, \
> >> email as user, password, \
> > Add: ..., password, password as pass, ..
> >
> >
>
> Aha - this is the master login stuff. That does kind of make sense.
> Quite subtle mind
>
> Thanks for replying
>
> Ed W
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> dovecot mailing list
> dovecot at dovecot.org
> http://dovecot.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dovecot
>
> End of dovecot Digest, Vol 90, Issue 3
> **************************************
>
>
>
>
--
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x092164A7
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-key 092164A7
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
Url : http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20101005/ef81931d/attachment.bin
More information about the dovecot
mailing list