Hmm. This is interesting. What version of openldap are you using? Most of the
ldap patches relate to OL2 that has a issue with sasl.
Tarjei
Lee Hoffman wrote:
>
> Ive had a heck of a time getting LDAP/cyrus/postfix all working
> together, but I finally did it. These were my stumbling blocks, ma
I think trying to patch in little solutions to how sieve currently works
are going to meet with problems that the current model wasn't designed with
this kind of broad functionality in mind. Going to a slightly different
model would not only solve this problem, but others as well.
Here's what
Ive had a heck of a time getting LDAP/cyrus/postfix all working
together, but I finally did it. These were my stumbling blocks, maybe
one of them will fix your problems:
(all done on debian 2.2r3 with latest cyrus/cyrus-sasl)
Do Not apply the cyrus-ldap patches. Ive tried them all and all I foun
This lookes like the good old SASL-LDAP problem. Have you read the FAQ?
Faq: cyrus-utils.sf.net/faq have a special look at the death by 11 section :)
Hope this helps.
Tarjei
Gardiner Leverett wrote:
>
> I have a rather complicated load I'm trying to do. I've been going
> through the archives
Yes, but it's not easy. The short answer is authenticated SMTP/LMTP.
Any user wanting to post then has to connect to one of your SMTP servers
and authenticate through some mechanism (PLAIN+TLS tends to work well for
many applications). Then, you have to set up authenticated trust between
eve
--On Wednesday, November 07, 2001 14:11:41 -0800 Pat Lashley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --On Wednesday, November 07, 2001 04:36:59 PM -0500 Lawrence Greenfield
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> [...]
>>And on a mostly unrelated note, what is the current state of the
>>ACAP daemon? Is
I *was* referring to the action "redirect" in sieve... for some reason I
thought it was an extension that hadn't been implemented in cyrus
But sure enough it exists in CVS and 2.0.16. Strange. I must have made a
mistake somewhere in one of my scripts...
This is what I got after trying to use
That was how my inital implementation worked. In this case the pseudo
user was "anyone".
It is working quite nicely for me.
The big problem is that you can only have one script for the entire set
of public folders.
On Fri, 2001-11-09 at 17:35, Nick Sayer wrote:
> It seems to me that this could
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2001 09:35:29 -0800 (PST),
> Nick Sayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (ns) writes:
ns> It seems to me that this could be far more easily done by creating a pseudo-
ns> user. Have this user be the target of the alias and his sieve script will
ns> be run. That sieve script can have no
I have a rather complicated load I'm trying to do. I've been going
through the archives without any answers.
I have a server running Solaris 2.7, and I'm trying to build Cyrus 2.0.16
with SASL 1.5.24, OpendLDAP 2.0.18, and pam_ldap 1.33.
I can't even tell if any of this is working as the im
hello folks!
what is this?
Warning: Option: AuthMechanisms requires SASL support (-DSASL)
thanks in advance
--
Oliver Kaufmann
It seems to me that this could be far more easily done by creating a pseudo-
user. Have this user be the target of the alias and his sieve script will
be run. That sieve script can have nothing but fileinto directives to
populate the public folders. This pseudo-user does not even have to have an
I
> On 09 Nov 2001 16:48:43 +,
> Ian Castle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (ic) writes:
ic> ... An alternative approach might be to implement the "redirect" feature
ic> in sieve. So that 'fileinto "some.folder"' wouldn't do any extra
It's already there. See RFC3028:
4.3. Action redirect
Ian Castle wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2001-11-09 at 14:52, Dave McCracken wrote:
> >
> > I have a question, though. If a sieve script does a 'fileinto' to redirect
> > mail to another folder, does the sieve script for that folder get run?
> > Intuitively I think it should, but what are the implication
On Fri, 2001-11-09 at 14:52, Dave McCracken wrote:
>
> I have a question, though. If a sieve script does a 'fileinto' to redirect
> mail to another folder, does the sieve script for that folder get run?
> Intuitively I think it should, but what are the implications?
Interesting. That would prob
Thanks Amos!
I think I am going to go with Michael's suggested U60 w/2 450 MHz and 2 Gig memory. Or
U220r
The E220R seems a bit excessive for us right now. I have 1000 users about 50 % imap.
I will slap external RAID for 80 gig space growth on it
I think I have to use the E220r for its i
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2001 11:13:25 -0500,
> Kiarna Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (kb) writes:
kb> I think I have to use the E220r for its intend purpose..sigh...
kb> (How many production servers can one girl rebuild in a month?)
Well, at least you won't have to worry about an upgrade for a rather
OK, here is the code I knocked up yesterday which implements the
"scripts use the same namespace as folders" concept. i.e. allows a
script to be set on a per folder basis, rather then a per user basis.
Note that there is a bit of functionality missing from what I described
yesterday - esp. in tim
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2001 08:59:34 -0500,
> Lawrence Greenfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (lg) writes:
lg> If we're going to worry about Sieve performance, we really should look
lg> into compiling scripts to a byte-code. Currently we run lex/yacc on a
lg> script on _every delivery_. This is pretty
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2001 08:10:35 -,
> Ian Castle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (ic) writes:
ic> Well, the mechanism/interface is there. Allow "activate" to apply to more
ic> than one script.
ic> One way would be to have a subdirectory called "default" with symlinks to
ic> all the active scripts i
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2001 08:29:53 -0500,
> Kiarna Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (kb) writes:
kb> I have a E220 R my predessesor bought sitting in a box, I have
kb> to dig it out and see what it has for
Oh gee, if you've got that, crack open the box. I would imagine
that would be sufficient, eve
--On Friday, November 09, 2001 08:10:35 + Ian Castle
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So rather than thinking that "this script applies to this user" I am
> suggesting that we think "this script applies to this folder". Obviously,
> if the folder is "user.fred" then the statements are synonymous
Would it be too much to ask that mail in this mailing list to be sent
directly to the mailing list as opposed to CC'ing it?
Peter Matulis
From: Amos Gouaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2001 00:15:07 -0600
[...]
What about all the stats looking for the script? Could that be a
problem? If so, could a db be used as a Sieve script index, like
the mailboxes.db?
If we're going to worry about Sieve performance,
Good Morning Michael,
I really appreciate your help.
I just inherited this system and am trying to figure it out.
All I can say about the mailstats is 'Doh!'.
I reintialized the mailstats file this AM.
Hopefully that will pick up some actually useful information.
I have a E220 R my predessesor
On Fri, 2001-11-09 at 06:15, Amos Gouaux wrote:
> What about all the stats looking for the script? Could that be a
> problem? If so, could a db be used as a Sieve script index, like
> the mailboxes.db?
>
That would be a possible optimisation. Currently, the is one fopen call
for every deliver
On Thursday, November 08, 2001 02:02:59 PM -0500 Kiarna Boyd
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+--
| Hey guys!
|
| I am still tuning my server Solaris 2.7 Sendmail 8 cyrus 2.0.16
|
| Looks like I just need bigger server.
| I changed the config to look locally for .forwards rather than
| $Home/.forwa
> From: Lawrence Greenfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> I think that you addressed my concerns in your second proposal. I'm
> not sure I love the idea of the "folder" command in timsieved, but
> I'll have to contemplate.
>
> I think there's also a question about whether at most one sieve scri
28 matches
Mail list logo
