Hi,
Horde seems to be quite the problem child. It sorta kinda looks like session handling is entirely broken.
kronolith will let me in, but not for long. Then I get "invalid token" and am bounced back to the home screen.
imp won't let me in at all. This behavior is completely broken: I get a log in screen and a message in /var/log/messages about not being authorized for IMP (which is apparently right up there in the list of useless, meaningless error messages).
Looking around on the web, I see a google thread about somebody saying kronolith shouldn't reset session data, and Jan Schneider, the horde developer, I think, insisting that it must. He seems to have his own idea about how things should work--and I'm beginning to wonder if it actually does.
Has anybody gotten this working?
By the way, this is CentOS 6.5.
Thanks!
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 4:17 PM, benfell@parts-unknown.org wrote:
Hi,
Horde seems to be quite the problem child. It sorta kinda looks like session handling is entirely broken.
kronolith will let me in, but not for long. Then I get "invalid token" and am bounced back to the home screen.
imp won't let me in at all. This behavior is completely broken: I get a log in screen and a message in /var/log/messages about not being authorized for IMP (which is apparently right up there in the list of useless, meaningless error messages).
Looking around on the web, I see a google thread about somebody saying kronolith shouldn't reset session data, and Jan Schneider, the horde developer, I think, insisting that it must. He seems to have his own idea about how things should work--and I'm beginning to wonder if it actually does.
Has anybody gotten this working?
By the way, this is CentOS 6.5.
If you are starting from scratch building a mail server you might want to look at SME server or ClearOS where webmail works out of the box.
On 2014-03-24 15:51, Les Mikesell wrote:
If you are starting from scratch building a mail server you might want to look at SME server or ClearOS where webmail works out of the box.
Definitely not a start from scratch. But I did find this:
http://senderek.ie/wee/webmail/wee-roundcube.php
It modifies roundcube to implement gnupg. I'm testing it now. And it seems to have failed....
*sigh*
On 03/24/2014 05:51 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 4:17 PM, benfell@parts-unknown.org wrote:
Hi,
Horde seems to be quite the problem child. It sorta kinda looks like session handling is entirely broken.
kronolith will let me in, but not for long. Then I get "invalid token" and am bounced back to the home screen.
imp won't let me in at all. This behavior is completely broken: I get a log in screen and a message in /var/log/messages about not being authorized for IMP (which is apparently right up there in the list of useless, meaningless error messages).
Looking around on the web, I see a google thread about somebody saying kronolith shouldn't reset session data, and Jan Schneider, the horde developer, I think, insisting that it must. He seems to have his own idea about how things should work--and I'm beginning to wonder if it actually does.
Has anybody gotten this working?
By the way, this is CentOS 6.5.
If you are starting from scratch building a mail server you might want to look at SME server or ClearOS where webmail works out of the box.
It would be my personal preference that we help people run things on CentOS rather than always recommending another distribution.
Instead of us always saying .. webmail does not work on CentOS .. why doesn't someone instead create a SIG that makes webmail work on CentOS.
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with ClearOS ... I wouldn't know, I have never used it. However, this is a CentOS mailing list, not a ClearOS one, so I would appreciate it if we at least answer the questions asked concerning setup first before recommending another OS.
I mean, I could also say ... Use FreeBSD or Microsoft Exchange or Something on Mac or whatever.
Lets make CentOS better as the default when we can.
If people really, really want to recommend something else then that is of course fine ... it is a community list after all. But even if someone does recommend another OS, if YOU know how to fix the problem on CentOS ... or ... if a SIG might help, then don't fail to also answer the original question asked just because someone else recommended "super whamodyne OS version awesome".
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
Has anybody gotten this working?
By the way, this is CentOS 6.5.
If you are starting from scratch building a mail server you might want to look at SME server or ClearOS where webmail works out of the box.
It would be my personal preference that we help people run things on CentOS rather than always recommending another distribution.
SME isn't exactly an 'other' distribution, and ClearOS wouldn't be if CentOS6 had had a timely release. They are the same code underneath, just already configured to work as installed and with a few additions.
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with ClearOS ... I wouldn't know, I have never used it. However, this is a CentOS mailing list, not a ClearOS one, so I would appreciate it if we at least answer the questions asked concerning setup first before recommending another OS.
If CentOS shipped a distribution that was a decent mail server as installed then I'd certainly recommend that. But it's a toolbox with lots of assembly required. The dozen or so people who know how to build their own mail server from scratch probably won't ask my advice.
I mean, I could also say ... Use FreeBSD or Microsoft Exchange or Something on Mac or whatever.
But those things aren't running the same kernel and packages as CentOS, so it would make less sense to mention them here.
If people really, really want to recommend something else then that is of course fine ... it is a community list after all. But even if someone does recommend another OS, if YOU know how to fix the problem on CentOS ... or ... if a SIG might help, then don't fail to also answer the original question asked just because someone else recommended "super whamodyne OS version awesome".
The SIG approach will probably work - eventually. When they have stuff that comes up doing some job as installed.
On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 23:05 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
If CentOS shipped a distribution that was a decent mail server as installed then I'd certainly recommend that. But it's a toolbox with lots of assembly required. The dozen or so people who know how to build their own mail server from scratch probably won't ask my advice.
Having absolutely no knowledge of Linux and with some unix-type experience from the 1970's, I installed Centos 5.3, did a yum install exim and with virtually no configuration Exim just worked surprisingly well. It fulfilled all my basic mail server (MTA) requirements.
Later I added customisation.
I was immensely happy I had returned to 'proper computing' and wished I had migrated many years earlier from the misery of Micro$oft.
My good experience is, I believe, very likely to be shared by many others around the world.
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 04:47:21AM +0000, Always Learning wrote:
My good experience is, I believe, very likely to be shared by many others around the world.
I think that much depends on what you're seeking to accomplish.
Most distributions, these days, will do an acceptable job of configuring a system for an end-user at installation. Those of us who've been around for a few years remember trying to get USB working, trying to get sound working, having to configure X by hand, and a lot of other hellish (but for some, immensely educational) experiences.
If, on the other hand, you're trying to throw up a server, things start getting more difficult. It isn't enough to say that the MTA configuration was acceptable out of the box, because if you're actually running your own domains, that simply doesn't come out of the box.
But at least with a MTA, you can pretty much configure it and forget it. Web servers always seem to need a bit of tweaking, just because this is your face to the world, or an important part of your infrastructure, and this often means experimenting with new software--like my ill-fated venture into horde.
And none of these configurations are intuitive. Postfix has way too many moving parts. I've got moderately decent anti-spam defenses up now and I'm basically hanging on to this configuration by the skin of my teeth. My apache configuration relies heavily on Include statements, repeating configurations for IP addresses and ports, and on my ability to use one domain as a template for another.
I doubt I have any of this stuff properly optimized for my server--and mysql is its own special case here, where if you keep following some guidance, you'll exceed the limits of your machine by a couple orders of magnitude. But in the meantime, you have to not let a system's poor performance drive you into making the problem worse.
If you've really ventured through all of this stuff, and into application layers and only had success, more power to you. I've found a few of my own limits along the way.
Am 25.03.2014 um 05:05 schrieb Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
If you are starting from scratch building a mail server you might want to look at SME server or ClearOS where webmail works out of the box.
It would be my personal preference that we help people run things on CentOS rather than always recommending another distribution.
SME isn't exactly an 'other' distribution, and ClearOS wouldn't be if CentOS6 had had a timely release. They are the same code underneath, just already configured to work as installed and with a few additions.
the point is that it is not CentOS, even RHEL is not CentOS.
the "webmail" is a specific scenario, maybe a variant spin of CentOS could be the result of a SIG.
-- LF
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:52 AM, Leon Fauster leonfauster@googlemail.com wrote:
SME isn't exactly an 'other' distribution, and ClearOS wouldn't be if CentOS6 had had a timely release. They are the same code underneath, just already configured to work as installed and with a few additions.
the point is that it is not CentOS, even RHEL is not CentOS.
No, it actually is mostly CentOS. Same packages. ClearOS used CentOS5 too, and only did their own rebuild after getting tired of waiting for 6. SME has a somewhat different installer that can install on a single disk as a 'broken' raid1, letting you add a mirror later, which is a nice touch, but the kernel and supporting code is the same once it is running. They both are managed in a very different way (through a web interface) than a stock system, but that's the point. If you want to do what they are set up to do, they make it much easier to get the same reliable code working. On the other hand, if you want something different, you end up having to do even more work to customize them.
the "webmail" is a specific scenario, maybe a variant spin of CentOS could be the result of a SIG.
I thought when the topic of SIGs for CentOS 7 first came up there was some input from the SME and ClearOS groups. Not sure if SME would be quite the same without their custom installer, but I think ClearOS is already just extra RPMs on top of a stock system.
On 25/03/14 04:05, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
Has anybody gotten this working?
By the way, this is CentOS 6.5.
If you are starting from scratch building a mail server you might want to look at SME server or ClearOS where webmail works out of the box.
It would be my personal preference that we help people run things on CentOS rather than always recommending another distribution.
SME isn't exactly an 'other' distribution, and ClearOS wouldn't be if CentOS6 had had a timely release. They are the same code underneath, just already configured to work as installed and with a few additions.
Whilst I understand why Johnny would prefer to be able to offer a CentOS-based solution rather than signposting users towards other products, I must admit I kind of agree with Les here.
My initial thought to Johnny's reply was why would CentOS want to reinvent this particular wheel, looking to solve a problem that has already been solved, just not by CentOS.
But if that's what a SIG wants to do, in the CentOS space, fine. Just be aware that a number of mature products already exist so you have a lot of catch up work to do just to get off the starting line.
What demand for such a product do you think exists from CentOS users? My guess is if people want or need that product they have long since been using the competition's offerings. So how long do you think it will take to get a CentOS offering to the point it can win back users from the competition? These are the types of questions I'd be thinking about if I were considering investing my time in such a SIG.
On 03/25/2014 12:45 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
On 25/03/14 04:05, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
Has anybody gotten this working?
By the way, this is CentOS 6.5.
If you are starting from scratch building a mail server you might want to look at SME server or ClearOS where webmail works out of the box.
It would be my personal preference that we help people run things on CentOS rather than always recommending another distribution.
SME isn't exactly an 'other' distribution, and ClearOS wouldn't be if CentOS6 had had a timely release. They are the same code underneath, just already configured to work as installed and with a few additions.
Whilst I understand why Johnny would prefer to be able to offer a CentOS-based solution rather than signposting users towards other products, I must admit I kind of agree with Les here.
My initial thought to Johnny's reply was why would CentOS want to reinvent this particular wheel, looking to solve a problem that has already been solved, just not by CentOS.
But if that's what a SIG wants to do, in the CentOS space, fine. Just be aware that a number of mature products already exist so you have a lot of catch up work to do just to get off the starting line.
What demand for such a product do you think exists from CentOS users? My guess is if people want or need that product they have long since been using the competition's offerings. So how long do you think it will take to get a CentOS offering to the point it can win back users from the competition? These are the types of questions I'd be thinking about if I were considering investing my time in such a SIG.
On top of what you said, I would add that majority of users are not real hard core admins, just people with an itch to scratch. So in that case out-of-the-box working system for regular Joe is what they need, a car that you can start and drive, not an assembly kit that need weeks of learning and putting together before driving it.
SME like ClearOS if what they need, and it is good way to start learning about CentOS, since all base packages are just that. I also started with ClarckConnect (ClearOS) in 2005, and I started to learn how things work once I had my web and mail server running on them.
On 25/03/14 14:06, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
On 03/25/2014 12:45 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
On 25/03/14 04:05, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
Has anybody gotten this working?
By the way, this is CentOS 6.5.
If you are starting from scratch building a mail server you might want to look at SME server or ClearOS where webmail works out of the box.
It would be my personal preference that we help people run things on CentOS rather than always recommending another distribution.
SME isn't exactly an 'other' distribution, and ClearOS wouldn't be if CentOS6 had had a timely release. They are the same code underneath, just already configured to work as installed and with a few additions.
Whilst I understand why Johnny would prefer to be able to offer a CentOS-based solution rather than signposting users towards other products, I must admit I kind of agree with Les here.
My initial thought to Johnny's reply was why would CentOS want to reinvent this particular wheel, looking to solve a problem that has already been solved, just not by CentOS.
But if that's what a SIG wants to do, in the CentOS space, fine. Just be aware that a number of mature products already exist so you have a lot of catch up work to do just to get off the starting line.
What demand for such a product do you think exists from CentOS users? My guess is if people want or need that product they have long since been using the competition's offerings. So how long do you think it will take to get a CentOS offering to the point it can win back users from the competition? These are the types of questions I'd be thinking about if I were considering investing my time in such a SIG.
On top of what you said, I would add that majority of users are not real hard core admins, just people with an itch to scratch. So in that case out-of-the-box working system for regular Joe is what they need, a car that you can start and drive, not an assembly kit that need weeks of learning and putting together before driving it.
SME like ClearOS if what they need, and it is good way to start learning about CentOS, since all base packages are just that. I also started with ClarckConnect (ClearOS) in 2005, and I started to learn how things work once I had my web and mail server running on them.
Yes, I agree.
I see two types of user - those who just want it to work out of the box with a Windows-like point and click interface to configure things without really having any clue what is happening under the bonnet, and those who want to assemble a system from the component parts and have a fuller understanding of how their system works. For the latter, I wrote the Postfix series of guides on the Wiki
http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos#head-0facb50d5796bee0bd394636c32ffa9a997a6ab5
which were designed to be modular and extensible, allowing folks to start off with a basic Postfix mail server and add such functionality as spam/virus filtering or authentication etc to their setup as and when required, learning the underlying technologies as they go.
Personally I would rather learn how to do something myself rather than have it pre-configured in such a way as someone else deems appropriate. That way when it breaks I have a clue how to fix it. So for me, a SIG needs to be little more than a set of tried and tested documentation I can follow together with a few extra packages in /CentOS/SIG/MailServerExtras that are missing from Core (which already exist in Repoforge and EPEL anyway). I don't want/need a pre-configued installable ISO image or whatever that has already made lots of predetermined choices for me.
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Ned Slider ned@unixmail.co.uk wrote:
I see two types of user - those who just want it to work out of the box with a Windows-like point and click interface to configure things without really having any clue what is happening under the bonnet, and those who want to assemble a system from the component parts and have a fuller understanding of how their system works.
There's also a big middle ground where you want to set up a system for someone else to manage and not have them call you everything they need a small change. Like a remote office where you want the office manager to be able to manage users/groups and maybe even give a new printer a name to match the label they stuck on it - and you wouldn't trust them to be root at a command line. Or a friend who wants a home file server with the potential for adding other services.
For the latter, I wrote the Postfix series of guides on the Wiki
http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos#head-0facb50d5796bee0bd394636c32ffa9a997a6ab5
which were designed to be modular and extensible, allowing folks to start off with a basic Postfix mail server and add such functionality as spam/virus filtering or authentication etc to their setup as and when required, learning the underlying technologies as they go.
Things like that are fine for pros. How much time should a non-technical person allow, starting from scratch and nothing but instructions they haven't read yet, before they would have a safe, working, email server? And really, why should they care about the underlying technology? Standard protocols are standard protocols.
Personally I would rather learn how to do something myself rather than have it pre-configured in such a way as someone else deems appropriate. That way when it breaks I have a clue how to fix it. So for me, a SIG needs to be little more than a set of tried and tested documentation
Yes, that is exactly the point of SME/ClearOS. First, they don't break much because their combinations of packages are well tested together, and second, if they do break, the authors and large base of users running the same thing are going to collaborate on the fix. If you assemble a bunch of pieces yourself out of the bare CentOS tools you are on your own. Again, that's fine for pros - and anyone getting paid to repeat work that has been done over and over again (sometimes right, sometimes badly...).
I don't want/need a pre-configued installable ISO image or whatever that has already made lots of predetermined choices for me.
No one is forcing you to use a known working configuration if you really want the toolbox. But be realistic about how much time it has cost you. The great thing about software is how re-usable it is - and except for users/groups and ip addresses, that pretty much applies to configurations too. So a configuration that provides a good service in one place can do the same in a lot of places without wasting a lot of time to reproduce it.
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic centos@plnet.rs wrote:
On top of what you said, I would add that majority of users are not real hard core admins, just people with an itch to scratch. So in that case out-of-the-box working system for regular Joe is what they need, a car that you can start and drive, not an assembly kit that need weeks of learning and putting together before driving it.
SME like ClearOS if what they need, and it is good way to start learning about CentOS, since all base packages are just that. I also started with ClarckConnect (ClearOS) in 2005, and I started to learn how things work once I had my web and mail server running on them.
I always thought that the CentOS project did itself a disservice by not encouraging and staying associated with the more usable respins. Another good one that worked up through CentOS5 was K12LTSP which was a fairly stock CentOS install that would come up PXE-booting thin clients - and it added a working java (back when that wasn't easy), flash, and a set of education-related programs. I hope the future SIG concept brings more of that kind of appliance-like setup pre-configured to do certain jobs without additional fiddling.
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:45 AM, Ned Slider ned@unixmail.co.uk wrote:
On 25/03/14 04:05, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org
wrote:
Has anybody gotten this working?
By the way, this is CentOS 6.5.
If you are starting from scratch building a mail server you might want to look at SME server or ClearOS where webmail works out of the box.
It would be my personal preference that we help people run things on CentOS rather than always recommending another distribution.
SME isn't exactly an 'other' distribution, and ClearOS wouldn't be if CentOS6 had had a timely release. They are the same code underneath, just already configured to work as installed and with a few additions.
Whilst I understand why Johnny would prefer to be able to offer a CentOS-based solution rather than signposting users towards other products, I must admit I kind of agree with Les here.
My initial thought to Johnny's reply was why would CentOS want to reinvent this particular wheel, looking to solve a problem that has already been solved, just not by CentOS.
I thought that CentOS's space was to be plug compatible with RHEL. Or has
that changed?
As such any upgrade to a package that also in RHEL breaks that paradigm.
Pragmatically that is going to happen in the hobbyist arena, but probably should not happen in the professional (for want of a better word) arena.
Cheers,
Cliff
On 03/24/2014 04:17 PM, benfell@parts-unknown.org wrote:
Hi,
Horde seems to be quite the problem child. It sorta kinda looks like session handling is entirely broken.
kronolith will let me in, but not for long. Then I get "invalid token" and am bounced back to the home screen.
imp won't let me in at all. This behavior is completely broken: I get a log in screen and a message in /var/log/messages about not being authorized for IMP (which is apparently right up there in the list of useless, meaningless error messages).
Looking around on the web, I see a google thread about somebody saying kronolith shouldn't reset session data, and Jan Schneider, the horde developer, I think, insisting that it must. He seems to have his own idea about how things should work--and I'm beginning to wonder if it actually does.
Has anybody gotten this working?
By the way, this is CentOS 6.5.
Thanks!
Are you using the version from EPEL?
If so, I would report to them that it is not working.
Or are you trying the software directly from horde.org?
On 2014-03-24 16:24, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 03/24/2014 04:17 PM, benfell@parts-unknown.org wrote:
Hi,
Horde seems to be quite the problem child. It sorta kinda looks like session handling is entirely broken.
kronolith will let me in, but not for long. Then I get "invalid token" and am bounced back to the home screen.
imp won't let me in at all. This behavior is completely broken: I get a log in screen and a message in /var/log/messages about not being authorized for IMP (which is apparently right up there in the list of useless, meaningless error messages).
Looking around on the web, I see a google thread about somebody saying kronolith shouldn't reset session data, and Jan Schneider, the horde developer, I think, insisting that it must. He seems to have his own idea about how things should work--and I'm beginning to wonder if it actually does.
Has anybody gotten this working?
By the way, this is CentOS 6.5.
Thanks!
Are you using the version from EPEL?
Yup.
If so, I would report to them that it is not working.
Thanks. I will do so.
Or are you trying the software directly from horde.org?
I've made this mistake before. A few times. The state of the pear packages is in continual flux. Often they are broken and, if there is an option to install stable versions when newer, broken ones are available, I haven't found it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
We've been using Horde on CentOS for years, and I'm just about to deploy a new server into production running the latest Horde release on CentOS 6.5.
I see later in the thread that you're trying to use the EPEL packages, which are based on the Horde 3 framework. The current stable framework is Horde 5, which is significantly advanced from the Horde 3 framework.
I'm deploying Groupware Webmail Edition 5.1.4, which includes turba, trean, kronolith, gollem, ingo, imp, mnemo and nag, plus I've installed passwd separately.
There's no doubt that Horde is a complex framework which is designed to work with a wide variety of backend services. It can be tricky to set up due to the level of complexity involved, but it works beautifully once everything is set up properly.
I'm using it for a number of virtual domains on one server, with Sendmail, Cyrus IMAPD (including Sieve for filtering) and PostgreSQL with LDAP authentication.
Nels Lindquist - ---- nlindq@maei.ca
On 3/24/2014 3:17 PM, benfell@parts-unknown.org wrote:
Hi,
Horde seems to be quite the problem child. It sorta kinda looks like session handling is entirely broken.
kronolith will let me in, but not for long. Then I get "invalid token" and am bounced back to the home screen.
imp won't let me in at all. This behavior is completely broken: I get a log in screen and a message in /var/log/messages about not being authorized for IMP (which is apparently right up there in the list of useless, meaningless error messages).
Looking around on the web, I see a google thread about somebody saying kronolith shouldn't reset session data, and Jan Schneider, the horde developer, I think, insisting that it must. He seems to have his own idea about how things should work--and I'm beginning to wonder if it actually does.
Has anybody gotten this working?
By the way, this is CentOS 6.5.
Thanks!
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 08:21:08AM -0600, Nels Lindquist wrote:
I see later in the thread that you're trying to use the EPEL packages, which are based on the Horde 3 framework. The current stable framework is Horde 5, which is significantly advanced from the Horde 3 framework.
Actually:
php-horde-horde.noarch 5.1.6-1.el6.remi @remi
I'm still a little confused about these additional repositories, but this looks like Horde 5 to me.
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:22 PM, benfell@parts-unknown.org wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 08:21:08AM -0600, Nels Lindquist wrote:
I see later in the thread that you're trying to use the EPEL packages, which are based on the Horde 3 framework. The current stable framework is Horde 5, which is significantly advanced from the Horde 3 framework.
Actually:
php-horde-horde.noarch 5.1.6-1.el6.remi @remi
I'm still a little confused about these additional repositories, but this looks like Horde 5 to me.
The remi repository will replace a lot of base packages with newer versions if you let it. It may be OK by itself or with EPEL enable but likely to conflict with anything else.
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 03:40:16PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
The remi repository will replace a lot of base packages with newer versions if you let it. It may be OK by itself or with EPEL enable but likely to conflict with anything else.
Jeez. There's more than decent reason to suspect that that might be a problem...
Thanks!
--On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 08:21:08 AM -0600 Nels Lindquist nlindq@maei.ca wrote:
We've been using Horde on CentOS for years, and I'm just about to deploy a new server into production running the latest Horde release on CentOS 6.5.
[...]
I'm deploying Groupware Webmail Edition 5.1.4, which includes turba, trean, kronolith, gollem, ingo, imp, mnemo and nag, plus I've installed passwd separately.
[...]
I'm using it for a number of virtual domains on one server, with Sendmail, Cyrus IMAPD (including Sieve for filtering) and PostgreSQL with LDAP authentication.
I've had similar configurations running for years on CentOS 5, using MySQL instead of PostgreSQL, and a slightly different enabled stack in the Webmail edition. Yes, you need to understand how mail protocols work, and you need to be able to read and understand technical documentation. Without trying to sound condescending, do we really expect non-technical users to be able run an MTA and MDA?
While getting that software stack working in the days of CentOS 5.0 was a bit complex, including needing to have custom builds of Cyrus IMAPd and Horde, I find that current versions deploy quite nicely on 5.10 with only minimal configuration changes, and have been quite stable.
Just waiting on CentOS 7 to start updating those systems ...
Devin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 3/24/2014 3:17 PM, benfell@parts-unknown.org wrote:
Hi,
Horde seems to be quite the problem child. It sorta kinda looks like session handling is entirely broken.
What are you using for a session handler?
kronolith will let me in, but not for long. Then I get "invalid token" and am bounced back to the home screen.
Tokens are different from sessions (related to forms, etc), and are configured differently.
imp won't let me in at all. This behavior is completely broken: I get a log in screen and a message in /var/log/messages about not being authorized for IMP (which is apparently right up there in the list of useless, meaningless error messages).
What are you using as an authentication backend? Many people with the simplest use case for Horde (single domain webmail; one server) set up the one required backend in IMP, and then allow Horde to use IMP for authentication, which in effect passes authentication for all of Horde through to the underlying mail server.
Looking around on the web, I see a google thread about somebody saying kronolith shouldn't reset session data, and Jan Schneider, the horde developer, I think, insisting that it must. He seems to have his own idea about how things should work--and I'm beginning to wonder if it actually does.
Not sure about this; I've never had users reporting any session issues in kronolith, even with the H3 framework you're trying to make work.
Has anybody gotten this working?
By the way, this is CentOS 6.5.
Nels Lindquist - ---- nlindq@maei.ca
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 09:56:46AM -0600, Nels Lindquist wrote:
On 3/24/2014 3:17 PM, benfell@parts-unknown.org wrote:
What are you using as an authentication backend? Many people with the simplest use case for Horde (single domain webmail; one server) set up the one required backend in IMP, and then allow Horde to use IMP for authentication, which in effect passes authentication for all of Horde through to the underlying mail server.
I was using the filesystem for the session-handling backend, and dovecot for authentication. Dovecot was the only authentication backend I could figure out how to get working.
For me at least, horde's documentation--especially on authentication backends--doesn't even begin to approach adequacy.
-
Always Learning -
benfell＠parts-unknown.org -
Cliff Pratt -
David Benfell
-
Devin Reade -
Johnny Hughes -
Leon Fauster -
Les Mikesell -
Ljubomir Ljubojevic -
Ned Slider -
Nels Lindquist