I have used fetchmail/procmail/postfix/dovecot/kmail for some time on my mail server, and have set this up on three or four machines in the past. I'm now setting up a new server and having problems. I've reached the thinking-in-circles stage, so need a prompt.
The box in question is called borg2.lydgate.lan, and resides at 192.168.0.40. I can ping both borg2.lydgate.lan and 192.168.0.40, yet kmail tells me that it cannot connect to it, either by name or ip. /etc/hosts has correct lines for the box. It has to be something pretty basic, but I can't think what, unless it is either an selinux problem or ipv6 problem. I know that in FC6 I turned ipv6 off (I'd have to search to find how to do that again).
Anne
On Jan 24, 2008 12:53 PM, Anne Wilson cannewilson@googlemail.com wrote:
I have used fetchmail/procmail/postfix/dovecot/kmail for some time on my mail server, and have set this up on three or four machines in the past. I'm now setting up a new server and having problems. I've reached the thinking-in-circles stage, so need a prompt.
The box in question is called borg2.lydgate.lan, and resides at 192.168.0.40. I can ping both borg2.lydgate.lan and 192.168.0.40, yet kmail tells me that it cannot connect to it, either by name or ip. /etc/hosts has correct lines for the box. It has to be something pretty basic, but I can't think what, unless it is either an selinux problem or ipv6 problem. I know that in FC6 I turned ipv6 off (I'd have to search to find how to do that again).
What about firewall rules ? # iptables -L
Did you tries do login localy ?
# telnet localhost 25 ... # telnet localhost 110 .. # telnet localhost 143 ..
Remotly ?
# telnet 192.168.0.40 25 ... # telnet 192.168.0.40 110 ... # telnet 192.168.0.40 143 ...
Did you in your logs ?
Regards
Anne
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Thursday 24 Jan 2008, Alain Spineux wrote:
On Jan 24, 2008 12:53 PM, Anne Wilson cannewilson@googlemail.com wrote:
I have used fetchmail/procmail/postfix/dovecot/kmail for some time on my mail server, and have set this up on three or four machines in the past. I'm now setting up a new server and having problems. I've reached the thinking-in-circles stage, so need a prompt.
The box in question is called borg2.lydgate.lan, and resides at 192.168.0.40. I can ping both borg2.lydgate.lan and 192.168.0.40, yet kmail tells me that it cannot connect to it, either by name or ip. /etc/hosts has correct lines for the box. It has to be something pretty basic, but I can't think what, unless it is either an selinux problem or ipv6 problem. I know that in FC6 I turned ipv6 off (I'd have to search to find how to do that again).
Thanks for replying.
What about firewall rules ? # iptables -L
I've not used iptables directly before, so perhaps you'd look over the current status:
iptables Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination RH-Firewall-1-INPUT all -- anywhere anywhere
Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination RH-Firewall-1-INPUT all -- anywhere anywhere
Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination
Chain RH-Firewall-1-INPUT (2 references) target prot opt source destination ACCEPT all -- anywhere anywhere ACCEPT icmp -- anywhere anywhere icmp any ACCEPT esp -- anywhere anywhere ACCEPT ah -- anywhere anywhere ACCEPT udp -- anywhere 224.0.0.251 udp dpt:mdns ACCEPT udp -- anywhere anywhere udp dpt:ipp ACCEPT tcp -- anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:ipp ACCEPT all -- anywhere anywhere state RELATED,ESTABLISHED ACCEPT tcp -- anywhere anywhere state NEW tcp dpt:smtp ACCEPT tcp -- anywhere anywhere state NEW tcp dpt:nfs ACCEPT tcp -- anywhere anywhere state NEW tcp dpt:ssh ACCEPT udp -- anywhere anywhere state NEW udp dpt:netbios-ns ACCEPT udp -- anywhere anywhere state NEW udp dpt:netbios-dgm ACCEPT tcp -- anywhere anywhere state NEW tcp dpt:netbios-ssn ACCEPT tcp -- anywhere anywhere state NEW tcp dpt:microsoft-ds REJECT all -- anywhere anywhere reject-with icmp-host-prohibited
Did you tries do login localy ?
# telnet localhost 25 ...
That's OK.
# telnet localhost 110 .. # telnet localhost 143 ..
Both these produce ''Temporary failure in name resolution'.
Remotly ?
# telnet 192.168.0.40 25 ... # telnet 192.168.0.40 110 ... # telnet 192.168.0.40 143 ...
telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: No route to host
How can that be? Pings work OK.
Did you in your logs ?
After the last postfix reload there is
postfix/smtpd[3284]: connect from localhost[127.0.0.1] postfix/smtpd[3284]: disconnect from localhost[127.0.0.1]
That looks a bit odd. Apart from that, I can't see anything relevant.
Anne
On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 15:24 +0000, Anne Wilson wrote:
On Thursday 24 Jan 2008, Alain Spineux wrote:
On Jan 24, 2008 12:53 PM, Anne Wilson cannewilson@googlemail.com wrote:
I have used fetchmail/procmail/postfix/dovecot/kmail for some time on my mail server, and have set this up on three or four machines in the past. I'm now setting up a new server and having problems. I've reached the thinking-in-circles stage, so need a prompt.
The box in question is called borg2.lydgate.lan, and resides at 192.168.0.40. I can ping both borg2.lydgate.lan and 192.168.0.40, yet kmail tells me that it cannot connect to it, either by name or ip. /etc/hosts has correct lines for the box. It has to be something pretty basic, but I can't think what, unless it is either an selinux problem or ipv6 problem. I know that in FC6 I turned ipv6 off (I'd have to search to find how to do that again).
Thanks for replying.
What about firewall rules ? # iptables -L
I've not used iptables directly before, so perhaps you'd look over the current status:
iptables Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination RH-Firewall-1-INPUT all -- anywhere anywhere
Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination RH-Firewall-1-INPUT all -- anywhere anywhere
Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination
Chain RH-Firewall-1-INPUT (2 references) target prot opt source destination ACCEPT all -- anywhere anywhere ACCEPT icmp -- anywhere anywhere icmp any ACCEPT esp -- anywhere anywhere ACCEPT ah -- anywhere anywhere ACCEPT udp -- anywhere 224.0.0.251 udp dpt:mdns ACCEPT udp -- anywhere anywhere udp dpt:ipp ACCEPT tcp -- anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:ipp ACCEPT all -- anywhere anywhere state RELATED,ESTABLISHED ACCEPT tcp -- anywhere anywhere state NEW tcp dpt:smtp ACCEPT tcp -- anywhere anywhere state NEW tcp dpt:nfs ACCEPT tcp -- anywhere anywhere state NEW tcp dpt:ssh ACCEPT udp -- anywhere anywhere state NEW udp dpt:netbios-ns ACCEPT udp -- anywhere anywhere state NEW udp dpt:netbios-dgm ACCEPT tcp -- anywhere anywhere state NEW tcp dpt:netbios-ssn ACCEPT tcp -- anywhere anywhere state NEW tcp dpt:microsoft-ds REJECT all -- anywhere anywhere reject-with icmp-host-prohibited
Did you tries do login localy ?
# telnet localhost 25 ...
That's OK.
# telnet localhost 110 .. # telnet localhost 143 ..
Both these produce ''Temporary failure in name resolution'.
Remotly ?
# telnet 192.168.0.40 25 ... # telnet 192.168.0.40 110 ... # telnet 192.168.0.40 143 ...
telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: No route to host
How can that be? Pings work OK.
Did you in your logs ?
After the last postfix reload there is
postfix/smtpd[3284]: connect from localhost[127.0.0.1] postfix/smtpd[3284]: disconnect from localhost[127.0.0.1]
That looks a bit odd. Apart from that, I can't see anything relevant.
---- the first 4 lines of /etc/hosts should look like this and apparently, yours doesn't...
# head -n 4 /etc/hosts # Do not remove the following line, or various programs # that require network functionality will fail. 127.0.0.1 localhost.localdomain localhost ::1 localhost6.localdomain6 localhost6
Fix this first
Craig
On Thursday 24 Jan 2008, Craig White wrote:
On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 15:24 +0000, Anne Wilson wrote:
On Thursday 24 Jan 2008, Alain Spineux wrote:
On Jan 24, 2008 12:53 PM, Anne Wilson cannewilson@googlemail.com
wrote:
I have used fetchmail/procmail/postfix/dovecot/kmail for some time on my mail server, and have set this up on three or four machines in the past. I'm now setting up a new server and having problems. I've reached the thinking-in-circles stage, so need a prompt.
The box in question is called borg2.lydgate.lan, and resides at 192.168.0.40. I can ping both borg2.lydgate.lan and 192.168.0.40, yet kmail tells me that it cannot connect to it, either by name or ip. /etc/hosts has correct lines for the box. It has to be something pretty basic, but I can't think what, unless it is either an selinux problem or ipv6 problem. I know that in FC6 I turned ipv6 off (I'd have to search to find how to do that again).
Thanks for replying.
What about firewall rules ? # iptables -L
I've not used iptables directly before, so perhaps you'd look over the current status:
iptables Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination RH-Firewall-1-INPUT all -- anywhere anywhere
Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination RH-Firewall-1-INPUT all -- anywhere anywhere
Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination
Chain RH-Firewall-1-INPUT (2 references) target prot opt source destination ACCEPT all -- anywhere anywhere ACCEPT icmp -- anywhere anywhere icmp any ACCEPT esp -- anywhere anywhere ACCEPT ah -- anywhere anywhere ACCEPT udp -- anywhere 224.0.0.251 udp dpt:mdns ACCEPT udp -- anywhere anywhere udp dpt:ipp ACCEPT tcp -- anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:ipp ACCEPT all -- anywhere anywhere state RELATED,ESTABLISHED ACCEPT tcp -- anywhere anywhere state NEW tcp dpt:smtp ACCEPT tcp -- anywhere anywhere state NEW tcp dpt:nfs ACCEPT tcp -- anywhere anywhere state NEW tcp dpt:ssh ACCEPT udp -- anywhere anywhere state NEW udp dpt:netbios-ns ACCEPT udp -- anywhere anywhere state NEW udp dpt:netbios-dgm ACCEPT tcp -- anywhere anywhere state NEW tcp dpt:netbios-ssn ACCEPT tcp -- anywhere anywhere state NEW tcp dpt:microsoft-ds REJECT all -- anywhere anywhere reject-with icmp-host-prohibited
Did you tries do login localy ?
# telnet localhost 25 ...
That's OK.
# telnet localhost 110 .. # telnet localhost 143 ..
Both these produce ''Temporary failure in name resolution'.
Remotly ?
# telnet 192.168.0.40 25 ... # telnet 192.168.0.40 110 ... # telnet 192.168.0.40 143 ...
telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: No route to host
How can that be? Pings work OK.
Did you in your logs ?
After the last postfix reload there is
postfix/smtpd[3284]: connect from localhost[127.0.0.1] postfix/smtpd[3284]: disconnect from localhost[127.0.0.1]
That looks a bit odd. Apart from that, I can't see anything relevant.
the first 4 lines of /etc/hosts should look like this and apparently, yours doesn't...
# head -n 4 /etc/hosts # Do not remove the following line, or various programs # that require network functionality will fail. 127.0.0.1 localhost.localdomain localhost
::1 localhost6.localdomain6 localhost6
Fix this first
They do look exactly like that :-)
Two minutes ago the problem was solved. Sheer stupidity. I had forgotten to chkconfig on. Dovecot is now running and it looks as though I can now continue with preparing the account to take over the work.
Thanks to all who tried to help.
Anne
On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 16:30 +0000, Anne Wilson wrote:
That looks a bit odd. Apart from that, I can't see anything relevant.
the first 4 lines of /etc/hosts should look like this and apparently, yours doesn't...
# head -n 4 /etc/hosts # Do not remove the following line, or various programs # that require network functionality will fail. 127.0.0.1 localhost.localdomain localhost
::1 localhost6.localdomain6 localhost6
Fix this first
They do look exactly like that :-)
Two minutes ago the problem was solved. Sheer stupidity. I had forgotten to chkconfig on. Dovecot is now running and it looks as though I can now continue with preparing the account to take over the work.
Thanks to all who tried to help.
---- glad you fixed it
this is what I was responding to...
# telnet localhost 110 .. # telnet localhost 143 ..
Both these produce ''Temporary failure in name resolution'.
so it seemed obvious that at some point, you had a defective /etc/hosts because if dovecot were not running, that wouldn't be the message. For example, this is what happens when I do this from a CentOS 5 server that isn't running POP3/IMAP server...
# telnet localhost 110 Trying 127.0.0.1... telnet: connect to address 127.0.0.1: Connection refused telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused
# telnet localhost 143 Trying 127.0.0.1... telnet: connect to address 127.0.0.1: Connection refused telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused
Craig
On Thursday 24 January 2008 16:38:49 Craig White wrote:
On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 16:30 +0000, Anne Wilson wrote:
this is what I was responding to...
# telnet localhost 110 .. # telnet localhost 143 ..
Both these produce ''Temporary failure in name resolution'.
so it seemed obvious that at some point, you had a defective /etc/hosts because if dovecot were not running, that wouldn't be the message. For example, this is what happens when I do this from a CentOS 5 server that isn't running POP3/IMAP server...
# telnet localhost 110 Trying 127.0.0.1... telnet: connect to address 127.0.0.1: Connection refused telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused
# telnet localhost 143 Trying 127.0.0.1... telnet: connect to address 127.0.0.1: Connection refused telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused
You know how difficult it is to try to remember the exact sequence of events, once it's over, but yes - I got that as well, a little later. Right now I can't remember what happened in between.
Meanwhile, although dovecot is now running, all is not well. I posted the details to the dovecot list, where I was told that 1.0.rc15 is old, and I should upgrade to 1.0.10, the latest stable release. I'm doing yum updates, so I presume that if this package is available for CentOS I would have to look for a 'testing' repository. Any advice there?
Anne
On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 18:59 +0000, Anne Wilson wrote:
On Thursday 24 January 2008 16:38:49 Craig White wrote:
On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 16:30 +0000, Anne Wilson wrote:
this is what I was responding to...
# telnet localhost 110 .. # telnet localhost 143 ..
Both these produce ''Temporary failure in name resolution'.
so it seemed obvious that at some point, you had a defective /etc/hosts because if dovecot were not running, that wouldn't be the message. For example, this is what happens when I do this from a CentOS 5 server that isn't running POP3/IMAP server...
# telnet localhost 110 Trying 127.0.0.1... telnet: connect to address 127.0.0.1: Connection refused telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused
# telnet localhost 143 Trying 127.0.0.1... telnet: connect to address 127.0.0.1: Connection refused telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused
You know how difficult it is to try to remember the exact sequence of events, once it's over, but yes - I got that as well, a little later. Right now I can't remember what happened in between.
Meanwhile, although dovecot is now running, all is not well. I posted the details to the dovecot list, where I was told that 1.0.rc15 is old, and I should upgrade to 1.0.10, the latest stable release. I'm doing yum updates, so I presume that if this package is available for CentOS I would have to look for a 'testing' repository. Any advice there?
---- no
http://centos.org/modules/tinycontent/index.php?id=3
there may be a 3rd party repo that has a more recent build available but I am not aware of such.
FWIW, I would recommend using cyrus-imapd for an IMAP server with a lot more features (albeit at a little greater complexity)
Craig
On Thursday 24 January 2008 19:22:19 Craig White wrote:
http://centos.org/modules/tinycontent/index.php?id=3
there may be a 3rd party repo that has a more recent build available but I am not aware of such.
I'm told that atrpms has one. Do the problems of conflicting third-party repos still exist as much as they did in FC6? I already have some rpmforge packages.
FWIW, I would recommend using cyrus-imapd for an IMAP server with a lot more features (albeit at a little greater complexity)
When I started with imap I chose dovecot because it could easily handle both mbox and maildir - and I needed it during a change-over period. That was 3 years ago, and I've become comfortable with it. I've set up temporary servers twice and a full server once more during that time. Although I started with v.0.99, this is the first time I've had a problem with it. I'm going to sleep on it. I'm sure that the problem can be solved. Thanks for your thoughts, though.
Anne
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 19:32 +0000, Anne Wilson wrote:
On Thursday 24 January 2008 19:22:19 Craig White wrote:
http://centos.org/modules/tinycontent/index.php?id=3
there may be a 3rd party repo that has a more recent build available but I am not aware of such.
I'm told that atrpms has one. Do the problems of conflicting third-party repos still exist as much as they did in FC6? I already have some rpmforge packages.
---- any time you add a 3rd party repo you are increasing the possibility of conflicting packages. You could however simply enable dovecot for atrpms and get nothing else and I would assume that wouldn't cause any problems. ----
FWIW, I would recommend using cyrus-imapd for an IMAP server with a lot more features (albeit at a little greater complexity)
When I started with imap I chose dovecot because it could easily handle both mbox and maildir - and I needed it during a change-over period. That was 3 years ago, and I've become comfortable with it. I've set up temporary servers twice and a full server once more during that time. Although I started with v.0.99, this is the first time I've had a problem with it. I'm going to sleep on it. I'm sure that the problem can be solved. Thanks for your thoughts, though.
---- well, the opportune time to switch is probably when you are starting to set up a new mail server.
Dovecot is mostly featureless POP3/IMAP
Cyrus-imapd has built-in... - quota - automatic folder, subscription, sieve scripts - sieve instead of procmail - automatic actions such as purging folders, search indexing on schedule - delayed expunge - shared mailboxes (ACL based) - public mailboxes - idled support - support for virtual users (no need to have uses with shell/users folders) - easy integration with LDAP - separate directory for mail store (not in users folders)
The theory that I used to select cyrus-imapd is/was the idea that if e-mail is the power application that everyone needs/uses, why not give it the maximum performance/features?
Craig
Craig White wrote:
well, the opportune time to switch is probably when you are starting to set up a new mail server.
Dovecot is mostly featureless POP3/IMAP
Come on. is it holy war time again? should I shoot over cyrus software now or should we keep this list clean? If you like cryus software, I am happy for you. If you've done a an serious/objective comparative study, put it a on a web page (and ask for comments). Debating this here is not constructive nor fair.
Cyrus-imapd has built-in...
- quota
- automatic folder, subscription, sieve scripts
- sieve instead of procmail
- automatic actions such as purging folders, search indexing on schedule
- delayed expunge
- shared mailboxes (ACL based)
- public mailboxes
- idled support
- support for virtual users (no need to have uses with shell/users folders)
- easy integration with LDAP
- separate directory for mail store (not in users folders)
The theory that I used to select cyrus-imapd is/was the idea that if e-mail is the power application that everyone needs/uses, why not give it the maximum performance/features?
I've been told this a lot of times, ... about MS Exchange ;-p but this list is about CentOS, so I'll stop here.
On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 22:46 +0100, mouss wrote:
Craig White wrote:
well, the opportune time to switch is probably when you are starting to set up a new mail server.
Dovecot is mostly featureless POP3/IMAP
Come on. is it holy war time again? should I shoot over cyrus software now or should we keep this list clean? If you like cryus software, I am happy for you. If you've done a an serious/objective comparative study, put it a on a web page (and ask for comments). Debating this here is not constructive nor fair.
---- why is it not constructive? Aren't dovecot and cyrus-imapd the only pop3/imap servers bundled with CentOS? Would not users of CentOS benefit from the discussion?
To be honest, I haven't looked at dovecot in quite some time...I made the switch from uw-imapd to cyrus-imapd on about 8 servers several years ago, finding that dovecot was pretty much like uw-imapd (but with a maildir implementation). It's likely they've added some features since I last considered it. ----
Cyrus-imapd has built-in...
- quota
- automatic folder, subscription, sieve scripts
- sieve instead of procmail
- automatic actions such as purging folders, search indexing on schedule
- delayed expunge
- shared mailboxes (ACL based)
- public mailboxes
- idled support
- support for virtual users (no need to have uses with shell/users folders)
- easy integration with LDAP
- separate directory for mail store (not in users folders)
The theory that I used to select cyrus-imapd is/was the idea that if e-mail is the power application that everyone needs/uses, why not give it the maximum performance/features?
I've been told this a lot of times, ... about MS Exchange ;-p but this list is about CentOS, so I'll stop here.
---- That's an interesting subject. I have a friend who is very pro-Macintosh and told me that he was planning on buying OSX Server and running all the various services off it (including mail server, etc.).
I listed out my typical plan, using either RHEL or CentOS, postfix, horde and a lot of other packages (obviously cyrus-imapd), which I could list here.
I actually recommended to this friend that he consider Microsoft SBS server and at least use it as a base for comparison (cost/features) because regardless of how you and I might feel about Microsoft Exchange server, it is a viable option if not the standard for small businesses.
I created this wiki page for the discussion of Exchange Server alternatives... http://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Exchange_Server_Alternatives
Craig
Craig White wrote:
On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 22:46 +0100, mouss wrote:
Craig White wrote:
well, the opportune time to switch is probably when you are starting to set up a new mail server.
Dovecot is mostly featureless POP3/IMAP
Come on. is it holy war time again? should I shoot over cyrus software now or should we keep this list clean? If you like cryus software, I am happy for you. If you've done a an serious/objective comparative study, put it a on a web page (and ask for comments). Debating this here is not constructive nor fair.
why is it not constructive?
because expereience shows that such debates should be conducted offlist, quietly and with arguments. Otherwise, proponents of each side jump on the wagon at every opportunity to reply to what they feel is an attack against their "baby". you know the story, so I won't annoy you by repeating it.
anyway, for it to be constructive, it should start on the right track. calling dovecot featureless and listing features that are actually supported by dovecot isn't a good start :)
Aren't dovecot and cyrus-imapd the only pop3/imap servers bundled with CentOS? Would not users of CentOS benefit from the discussion?
courier is another choice.
To be honest, I haven't looked at dovecot in quite some time...I made the switch from uw-imapd to cyrus-imapd on about 8 servers several years ago, finding that dovecot was pretty much like uw-imapd (but with a maildir implementation). It's likely they've added some features since I last considered it.
Cyrus-imapd has built-in...
- quota
- automatic folder, subscription, sieve scripts
- sieve instead of procmail
- automatic actions such as purging folders, search indexing on schedule
- delayed expunge
- shared mailboxes (ACL based)
- public mailboxes
- idled support
- support for virtual users (no need to have uses with shell/users folders)
- easy integration with LDAP
- separate directory for mail store (not in users folders)
The theory that I used to select cyrus-imapd is/was the idea that if e-mail is the power application that everyone needs/uses, why not give it the maximum performance/features?
I've been told this a lot of times, ... about MS Exchange ;-p but this list is about CentOS, so I'll stop here.
That's an interesting subject. I have a friend who is very pro-Macintosh and told me that he was planning on buying OSX Server and running all the various services off it (including mail server, etc.).
I listed out my typical plan, using either RHEL or CentOS, postfix, horde and a lot of other packages (obviously cyrus-imapd), which I could list here.
I actually recommended to this friend that he consider Microsoft SBS server and at least use it as a base for comparison (cost/features) because regardless of how you and I might feel about Microsoft Exchange server, it is a viable option if not the standard for small businesses.
I wouldn't say it's the standard. I'd say that every business should select the solution that they can afford, not only in terms of pricing but also in terms of costs of maintenance and the availability of people who know what to do.
I created this wiki page for the discussion of Exchange Server alternatives... http://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Exchange_Server_Alternatives
nice. thanks for the pointer.
On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 16:09 +0100, mouss wrote:
Craig White wrote:
On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 22:46 +0100, mouss wrote:
Craig White wrote:
well, the opportune time to switch is probably when you are starting to set up a new mail server.
Dovecot is mostly featureless POP3/IMAP
Come on. is it holy war time again? should I shoot over cyrus software now or should we keep this list clean? If you like cryus software, I am happy for you. If you've done a an serious/objective comparative study, put it a on a web page (and ask for comments). Debating this here is not constructive nor fair.
why is it not constructive?
because expereience shows that such debates should be conducted offlist, quietly and with arguments. Otherwise, proponents of each side jump on the wagon at every opportunity to reply to what they feel is an attack against their "baby". you know the story, so I won't annoy you by repeating it.
anyway, for it to be constructive, it should start on the right track. calling dovecot featureless and listing features that are actually supported by dovecot isn't a good start :)
---- probably not, but it seemed fair once I got into cyrus-imapd and saw all of the bonus options that I never had in uw-imapd. I suppose that dovecot has virtual user features (without maildir) and LDAP support and you could probably shell script some of the other stuff to get around the lack of built-in support. ----
Aren't dovecot and cyrus-imapd the only pop3/imap servers bundled with CentOS? Would not users of CentOS benefit from the discussion?
courier is another choice.
---- courier isn't included in upstream or CentOS
Craig
Craig White wrote:
On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 16:09 +0100, mouss wrote:
Craig White wrote:
On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 22:46 +0100, mouss wrote:
Craig White wrote:
well, the opportune time to switch is probably when you are starting to set up a new mail server.
Dovecot is mostly featureless POP3/IMAP
Come on. is it holy war time again? should I shoot over cyrus software now or should we keep this list clean? If you like cryus software, I am happy for you. If you've done a an serious/objective comparative study, put it a on a web page (and ask for comments). Debating this here is not constructive nor fair.
why is it not constructive?
because expereience shows that such debates should be conducted offlist, quietly and with arguments. Otherwise, proponents of each side jump on the wagon at every opportunity to reply to what they feel is an attack against their "baby". you know the story, so I won't annoy you by repeating it.
anyway, for it to be constructive, it should start on the right track. calling dovecot featureless and listing features that are actually supported by dovecot isn't a good start :)
probably not, but it seemed fair once I got into cyrus-imapd and saw all of the bonus options that I never had in uw-imapd. I suppose that dovecot has virtual user features (without maildir)
with and without. dovecot supports multiple mailbox formats.
and LDAP support and you could probably shell script some of the other stuff to get around the lack of built-in support.
It supports sieve, quota, spam filtering, ... dovecot has a plugin mechanism which helps provide additionnal functionality if needed.
Aren't dovecot and cyrus-imapd the only pop3/imap servers bundled with CentOS? Would not users of CentOS benefit from the discussion?
courier is another choice.
courier isn't included in upstream or CentOS
I have no idea why... anyway, if you have a "development server", it's not a problem. see
http://www.howtoforge.com/installing-courier-imap-courier-authlib-maildrop-f... for example.
on 1/24/2008 11:32 AM Anne Wilson spake the following:
On Thursday 24 January 2008 19:22:19 Craig White wrote:
http://centos.org/modules/tinycontent/index.php?id=3
there may be a 3rd party repo that has a more recent build available but I am not aware of such.
I'm told that atrpms has one. Do the problems of conflicting third-party repos still exist as much as they did in FC6? I already have some rpmforge packages.
FWIW, I would recommend using cyrus-imapd for an IMAP server with a lot more features (albeit at a little greater complexity)
When I started with imap I chose dovecot because it could easily handle both mbox and maildir - and I needed it during a change-over period. That was 3 years ago, and I've become comfortable with it. I've set up temporary servers twice and a full server once more during that time. Although I started with v.0.99, this is the first time I've had a problem with it. I'm going to sleep on it. I'm sure that the problem can be solved. Thanks for your thoughts, though.
If you are trying to re-use a config file from 0.99 it won't work. You need to follow the layout of the newer files for your current version and adjust the settings as needed.
On Thursday 24 January 2008 19:59:02 Scott Silva wrote:
on 1/24/2008 11:32 AM Anne Wilson spake the following:
On Thursday 24 January 2008 19:22:19 Craig White wrote:
http://centos.org/modules/tinycontent/index.php?id=3
there may be a 3rd party repo that has a more recent build available but I am not aware of such.
I'm told that atrpms has one. Do the problems of conflicting third-party repos still exist as much as they did in FC6? I already have some rpmforge packages.
FWIW, I would recommend using cyrus-imapd for an IMAP server with a lot more features (albeit at a little greater complexity)
When I started with imap I chose dovecot because it could easily handle both mbox and maildir - and I needed it during a change-over period. That was 3 years ago, and I've become comfortable with it. I've set up temporary servers twice and a full server once more during that time. Although I started with v.0.99, this is the first time I've had a problem with it. I'm going to sleep on it. I'm sure that the problem can be solved. Thanks for your thoughts, though.
If you are trying to re-use a config file from 0.99 it won't work. You need to follow the layout of the newer files for your current version and adjust the settings as needed.
A thought worth checking. I did start with 0.99, but I think the server I'm retiring has 1.0. I'll check in the morning, thanks.
Anne
On Thursday 24 Jan 2008, Scott Silva wrote:
If you are trying to re-use a config file from 0.99 it won't work. You need to follow the layout of the newer files for your current version and adjust the settings as needed.
It wasn't that, but that did put me on the right track. I had copied over an old version of dovecot.conf by mistake. Copying in the current one and changing a few path lines got it working.
Thanks to all for the suggestions.
Anne
-
Alain Spineux -
Anne Wilson -
Craig White -
Craig White -
mouss -
Scott Silva