On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Wil Cooley wrote:
> Are you saying that using Sieve makes it impossible to disable duplicate
> suppression or that Sieve just uses the duplicate delivery database
On 2.1, it is impossible I think. On 2.2, the two functionalities are
separate.
> regardless of the 'duplicatesup
--On Friday, November 19, 2004 10:17 AM -0800 Wil Cooley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
IOn Fri, 2004-11-19 at 10:58 -0500, Scott Adkins wrote:
I don't believe this is the case... We set it to "no" on our site because
we see a lot of lock contention on the duplicate delivery database. The
problem is
IOn Fri, 2004-11-19 at 10:58 -0500, Scott Adkins wrote:
> I don't believe this is the case... We set it to "no" on our site because
> we see a lot of lock contention on the duplicate delivery database. The
> problem is that setting it to "no" doesn't help if you have SIEVE enabled
> in your server
On Fri, 2004-11-19 at 16:58, Scott Adkins wrote:
> The end result is that we patched our server (both in 2.2.1 and in 2.2.8)
> to honor the "no" for even Sieve operations. This works, but the downside
> is that this will break vacation stuff, as it is needed to prevent the
> auto-response message
I don't believe this is the case... We set it to "no" on our site because
we see a lot of lock contention on the duplicate delivery database. The
problem is that setting it to "no" doesn't help if you have SIEVE enabled
in your server. From what I could tell in the source code, SIEVE makes
very a
On Friday 19 November 2004 14:01, Fredrik Jönsson wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-11-19 at 12:58, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
> I apologize, I missed that. It's hard to see (for me) how amavis could
Hey, no problem :)
> intervene, unless it mangles the message ids, and it that case it would
> most likely cause
On Fri, 2004-11-19 at 12:58, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
> As I said, I already tried that and it does not work. Anyway, I wanted to be
> sure this was the right option, so now I know this is.
> I can now check deeper into the problem to see why this does not work. Since
> amavis is between sendmail
On Friday 19 November 2004 11:14, Fredrik Jönsson wrote:
> duplicatesuppression: yes
> If enabled, lmtpd will suppress delivery of a message
> to a mailbox if a message with the same message-id (or
> resent-message-id) is recorded as having already been
>
Hi,
>From the man-page imapd.conf(5)
duplicatesuppression: yes
If enabled, lmtpd will suppress delivery of a message
to a mailbox if a message with the same message-id (or
resent-message-id) is recorded as having already been
delivered to the mailbo
On Thursday 18 November 2004 22:52, torgan wrote:
> cyrus.conf
> # this is only necessary if using duplicate delivery suppression,
> # Sieve or NNTP
> #delprune cmd="cyr_expire -E 3" at=0400
>
> hope that would help
Well, thanks but not really. I already saw that but I don't see how it would
Am 17.11.2004 10:09 schrieb Antoine Jacoutot:
Hi :)
I have a really _stupid_ question but I can't find the answer.
When I send for exemple an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] (which
is an alias to [EMAIL PROTECTED]), I only receive one mail in my cyrus INBOX, not
two.
I tried to
11 matches
Mail list logo
