headers
Chris Cappuccio | 1 Jul 2006 02:23
Gravatar

Re: Improving interaction/performance with Mail.app?

out of curiousity, how do you know it's mail.app?
have you tested your imap server with other clients?
maybe your server has problems..... 

the only things you can tweak in dovecot are the client workarounds,
and turning on/off indexing, which i assume you have on

maybe you could explain the problems in more detail?

Alan Schmitt [alan.schmitt <at> polytechnique.org] wrote:
> On 30 juin 06, at 09:48, Simon Waters wrote:
> 
> >On Friday 30 Jun 2006 08:26, Alan Schmitt wrote:
> >>
> >>I'm using dovecot as my IMAP server just for me, and I access it from
> >>three machines, all using Apple Mail.app. Unfortunately the
> >>performance is really bad, especially when deleting or copying a lot
> >>of messages. I know this is the fault of Mail.app, whose IMAP support
> >>leaves a lot to desire, but I was wondering if there could be some
> >>dovecot configuration tricks that make the interaction smoother.
> >
> >Without any information on how the system is configured my crystal  
> >ball
> >suggests maybe you are using mbox format rather than maildir on  
> >folders with
> >lots of messages.
> >
> >If crystal ball is broken, please supply more info to allow me to  
> >get it
> >fixed.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Marcus Rueckert | 1 Jul 2006 05:17
Picon

Re: writing a plugin for LDA to chain Unix pipes

On 2006-07-01 00:39:40 +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> I've spent some part of the last week on trying to figure out
> whether dovecot LDA meets our requirements for a new mail server
> infrastructure (the IMAP and POP servers, as well as the SASL
> backend certainly do; thanks a lot!). The one thing that's holding
> me back is that we need per-user integration of SpamAssassin and
> some other, custom content filters, all of which are implemented as
> Unix pipe filters.

run them in your MTA before pushing stuff into the LDA?

e.g. i deliver incoming via lmtp to dspam. dspam reinjects the mail into
postfix. and postfix calls dovecot-lda to deliver the mail.

works flawlessly here. so i dont see why we should bloat dovecot-lda,
when most mail server handle that just fine already.

just my 2 cents,

    darix

--

-- 
           openSUSE - SUSE Linux is my linux
               openSUSE is good for you
                   www.opensuse.org
Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
Timothy White | 1 Jul 2006 09:31

Re: writing a plugin for LDA to chain Unix pipes

On 7/1/06, Marcus Rueckert <rueckert <at> informatik.uni-rostock.de> wrote:
> On 2006-07-01 00:39:40 +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> > I've spent some part of the last week on trying to figure out
> > whether dovecot LDA meets our requirements for a new mail server
> > infrastructure (the IMAP and POP servers, as well as the SASL
> > backend certainly do; thanks a lot!). The one thing that's holding
> > me back is that we need per-user integration of SpamAssassin and
> > some other, custom content filters, all of which are implemented as
> > Unix pipe filters.
>
> run them in your MTA before pushing stuff into the LDA?
>
> e.g. i deliver incoming via lmtp to dspam. dspam reinjects the mail into
> postfix. and postfix calls dovecot-lda to deliver the mail.
>
> works flawlessly here. so i dont see why we should bloat dovecot-lda,
> when most mail server handle that just fine already.

I have to agree. This isn't a LDA function. Content filters are a MTA
function. You should be able to pipe all the filters together, so in
your call to dovecot-lda in your mta, it just changes into one big
pipe... For example

`dspam --stdout| dovecot-lda -d $u`
or
`spamassasin | custom filter| dovecot-lda`
As you said they are all pipe filters, so they should work in a pipe
just fine! (Dspam can be a pain to get working in a pipe sometimes).
The LDA is exactly that, Local Delivery Agent, and should only have to
deliver mail to the correct boxes, the fact that it also filters them
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Alan Schmitt | 1 Jul 2006 09:51

Re: Improving interaction/performance with Mail.app?

On 1 juil. 06, at 02:23, Chris Cappuccio wrote:

> out of curiousity, how do you know it's mail.app?

I don't, but I have seen reports of bad IMAP performance for Mail.app  
but no such report for dovecot, so it was my first assumption.

> have you tested your imap server with other clients?
> maybe your server has problems.....

It could be a possibility. The strange thing is that it does not  
matter how many clients are connected, the behavior is often the  
same: messages are copied or deleted one per minute (it seems), and I  
see every minute in the log things like:
Jun 28 16:21:51 top dovecot: imap-login: Login: user=<schmitta>,  
method=PLAIN, rip=::1, l ip=::1, secured
Jun 28 16:21:52 top dovecot: IMAP(schmitta): Disconnected
Jun 28 16:22:52 top dovecot: imap-login: Login: user=<schmitta>,  
method=PLAIN, rip=::1, l ip=::1, secured
Jun 28 16:22:54 top dovecot: IMAP(schmitta): Disconnected

It should also be noted that since I installed OS X.4.7, things seem  
to be working better.

> the only things you can tweak in dovecot are the client workarounds,

Ah, nice to point this out. I just turned on "delay-newmail" as it's  
indicated to help with OS X.

> and turning on/off indexing, which i assume you have on
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Dirk Engling | 1 Jul 2006 13:55

Secure connection from "localhost" in jails


Dear dovecot developers,

first: thanks for this really cool imapd, on my server it serves some
hundred domains, all in all some thousand users, some having hundred
thousand mails in their Maildirs (their spam boxes mostly).

Since I put this installation in an FreeBSD geli encrypted disc image I
had no choice but to choose an imapd with clever indexes - dovecot was
perfect.

However, since I reconfigured the disc image to work as a FreeBSD jail,
I had some trouble with my web mail solution. Squirrelmail does not work
 with imaps (or at least not smoothly, out of the box, or whatever) and
I didn't like to hack php to support SSL. Plus: there is no point in
using ssl for a local connection.

In a FreeBSD jail a sockets source address is always rewritten to the
jails address, so squirrelmail opening a connection to dovecot will not
come from 127.0.0.1 but from the same (jails) address, dovecot listens to.

Still, dovecot only considers 'localhost' addresses as secure and allows
LOGIN or PLAIN auth. With the little patch below dovecot allows clients
from the jail to authenticate via LOGIN, when they connect from the IP
it accepts connections at.

Something similar is lurking around in pop3 auth code, I am sure, you
get the point.

Regards
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
the.buratino | 1 Jul 2006 13:58
Picon
Favicon

Bug: ThunderBird and dovecot 1rc1

Hello!

It seems to me that correct deletion of message in thunderbird still
doesn't work with ThanderBird and dovectot 1rc1. As I've said before
messages are not removed phisically from filesystem, just marked for
deletetion. Though I'm not sure that this is dovecot bug and not
ThunderBird. Anyone to clarify this issue ?
Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
John Peacock | 1 Jul 2006 16:32

Re: Bug: ThunderBird and dovecot 1rc1

the.buratino <at> rambler.ru wrote:
> As I've said before
> messages are not removed phisically from filesystem, just marked for
> deletetion. Though I'm not sure that this is dovecot bug and not
> ThunderBird.

This is not a dovecot bug, nor a Thunderbird bug for that matter.  Many mail
clients will DELETE a message, but not PURGE the folder until requested.

John

--

-- 
John Peacock
Director of Information Research and Technology
Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group
4501 Forbes Blvd
Suite H
Lanham, MD 20706
301-459-3366 x.5010
fax 301-429-5747
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Scott Ellis | 1 Jul 2006 16:41
Favicon

Re: Bug: ThunderBird and dovecot 1rc1

John Peacock wrote:
> the.buratino <at> rambler.ru wrote:
>> As I've said before
>> messages are not removed phisically from filesystem, just marked for
>> deletetion. Though I'm not sure that this is dovecot bug and not
>> ThunderBird.
> 
> This is not a dovecot bug, nor a Thunderbird bug for that matter.  Many mail
> clients will DELETE a message, but not PURGE the folder until requested.

Precisely.  Check out the "CompactFolder" extension for Thunderbird 
(there are a handful of others as well) to cause a PURGE to happen.

	ScottE
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
martin f krafft | 1 Jul 2006 19:00

Re: writing a plugin for LDA to chain Unix pipes

Thank you, Marcus and Timothy, for your replies!

also sprach Marcus Rueckert <rueckert <at> informatik.uni-rostock.de> [2006.07.01.0517 +0200]:
> run them in your MTA before pushing stuff into the LDA?
> e.g. i deliver incoming via lmtp to dspam. dspam reinjects the mail into
> postfix. and postfix calls dovecot-lda to deliver the mail.

Then it's not per-user, or at least I could not figure out how to do
this properly with postfix.

also sprach Timothy White <dovecot.user <at> weirdo.bur.st> [2006.07.01.0931 +0200]:
> I have to agree. This isn't a LDA function. Content filters are a MTA
> function.

Okay, all the better, then I don't have to write the plugin. :)

> You should be able to pipe all the filters together, so in
> your call to dovecot-lda in your mta, it just changes into one big
> pipe... For example
> 
> `dspam --stdout| dovecot-lda -d $u`
> or
> `spamassasin | custom filter| dovecot-lda`

I read somewhere on the net that this is pretty flakey and will fail
badly in the case of intermittent errors, but I cannot find the
reference anymore. Is anyone using this with success?

Also, the above spawns an expensive shell process, doesn't it?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Timo Sirainen | 1 Jul 2006 19:25
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: Developing new Dspam Plugin

On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 11:08 +0800, Timothy White wrote:
> On 6/28/06, Timothy White <weirdit <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > I just realised that it may be possible to exploit the snprintf and
> > send strange commands to the server, for this reason, the user that
> > the plugin uses, should only be able to run the 2 procedure's. I have
> > no idea how to make this secure, or if it is secure or not. Any ideas?
> > (e.g. snprintf(query, 20+MAXSIGLEN, "CALL SPAM(\"%s\")", signature);
> > If someone modifies the header, as long as it's within the MAXSIGLEN
> > then they can effect the query?)
> 
> Anyone got ideas/comments on this?

#include "strescape.h"

query = t_strdup_printf("CALL SPAM(\"%s\")", str_escape(signature));

And maybe put t_push() and t_pop() calls somewhere so that when copying
lots of messages it doesn't temporarily use too much memory (the query's
memory is valid until t_pop() is called).

Although the str_escape() isn't the right way to do it.
mysql_real_escape_string() would be better. But anyway rather than using
MySQL directly you could use sql-api.h. Then you could also use
sql_escape_string() which is easier. :)
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane