hMailServer 4.4

Post by **martin** » 2006-10-20 21:41

Now when 4.3 is getting closer to be put up as stable, I feel it's better to keep future releases smaller and release more often instead. 4.3 have taken a ridiculous amount of time. (Some of you may remember that I said exactly the same after 4.1 but apparently I didn't... remember.).

So with this in mind, hMailServer 4.4 will "only" have the following new features:

It will be possible to specify the following properties for every domain (all optional)
- Max domain size
- Max number of accounts
- Max number of aliases
- Max number of distribution lists
- Max size of created accounts
- Max message size
(These have already been implemented)

It will be possible to configure caching for aliases, distribution lists, IMAP folders and message lists. This will allow you to run hMailServer in a simple cluster.
(Implementation started)

Most likely also:
- Re-ordering of rules and rule actions
(Implementation started a long time ago but I never finished it.)

Perhaps also:
- Auto reply expiration
(Not started)

^DooM^ · Post by **^DooM^** » 2006-10-20 21:56

Last one please

Auto replys are annoying at the best of times

gruenie · Post by **gruenie** » 2006-10-21 14:11

Hi Martin,
do you plan to expand the "DB-methods" in the COM-API too?
Maybe you remember, that we discussed about getting returns for
select-, update-, insert- and delete-tasks f.e. That would make it
more easy and secure to use the COM-APi for some user-tasks
in relation of integrate the hmailserver in existing portals.
Gruenie

Post by **martin** » 2006-10-21 14:14

I have no such plans at the moment. This feature is not in the top list of requested features. I'm not sure you have even requested it in the feature request section?

Besides, what stops you from connecting to the database using a normal MySQL client?

gruenie · Post by **gruenie** » 2006-10-21 14:43

Hi Martin,
maybe you remember our discussons about sychronisation of portal-users and hmailserver-accounts?!
My first intenton was to do all the tasks (adding/deleting accounts etc...) by myself using the mysql-functions.
Most of tasks are without any problems, but f.e. deleting an account is a much komplex task (deleting all
messages in the filesystem and, and, and). In this time I asked you, what exactly I have to do to delete an account.
You asked my why I'm not usin the COM-API - and I told you about the problems adding an existing portal-user
with an already md5-encrypted password, becaue it is impossible with the current possibilities of the COM-API.
Nevertheless I changed all tasks using the COM-API besides adding hmailserver-user-accounts of already existing
portal-users (because the md5-user-password would be encrypted again).

That all is working, I really have no problem using php and all of its possibilities, BUT it is an ugly solution.
For me and my portal alone there is no problem, but if others would use my portal-system, they would have to specify:
1. mysql-server-address
2. mysql-server-port,
3. database, user, pass etc....
in addition to the setting for the COM-API and all that only for one task, adding an existing portal-user to the
hmailserver-acoounts, if the user-passord is md5-encrypted.
Do you know, what I mean?
In addition to that I alsways have to have attention, if you change something in the database-structure etc.

No I changed all and I'm using the existing DB-mehods of your COM-API, but I never get any returns, I cannot check
the result because there is no "select"-property, so I "hope" in my script, that the update-task in your DB-method
was successful (copying the md5-password) until the moment I get an return-value.....hopefully!

Gruenie

Post by **martin** » 2006-10-21 14:55

And have you added this request to the feature request section?

If I add this feature, do you promise that you will stop making annoyingly long posts over and over and over again throughout the different parts of the forum...? I find less things more annoying than long duplicate posts regarding the same thing... Just so you know it, it makes me much more irritated than the spam posts in the forum.

(I will _not_ add supports for select etc to the COM API. hMailServer is an email sever - not a database access component. I might add a property to set a MD5 password for accounts though.)

westdam · Post by **westdam** » 2006-10-21 15:20

hey hey martin i believe i was the only capable to irritating you!!! hehehe, i'm joking of course

and what about sender id/domainkeys ??
in the topic for the v5 you state to add this as a 4.X feature.

not so important anyway..

gruenie · Post by **gruenie** » 2006-10-21 18:27

1. abashed: "no"

2. I cannot promise that, no, really, I cannot! What I can do is to promise, that I will do my best to keep posts shorter! Is that enough?

3. Hmmm... there is the column "accountpwencryption", which can be 0 or 2; so it would be not enough to "copy" an md5-ecrypted portaluser-password without the possibility to change the encryption-value

Shorter was not possible for me!

Gruenie

Post by **martin** » 2006-10-21 18:40

westdam, the above list goes for 4.4. All other features in the world will be postponed to a later version, such as 4.5, 4.6 or 5.0

gruenie, is it enough that the execute-method in the COM API throws an exception if it fails? This way you can set the MD5 password in the database, and set the encryption method to 2. Right?

gruenie · Post by **gruenie** » 2006-10-21 19:01

Well, if we would have a method to set/update the password and another one to set/update the encryption-value,
that should be exactly, what we need. So if we have an already md5-encrypted USER-password, we first add the
hmail-account and later we set/copy the md5-password into the hm_accounts-table and set the encryption-value to 2.
Both would be fine, if the execute-method in the COM-API throws an exception or if it returns "FALSE" if it fails.

Post by **martin** » 2006-10-21 19:06

But all you need is a way to run
update hm_accounts set accountpassword = x, accountpasswordencryption = x where accountid = x
.. which can be done using the Execute method. You don't need any additional properties as far as I can tell?

gruenie · Post by **gruenie** » 2006-10-21 19:30

Now I'm using:
( defined in settings: $md5_value = 2; )
$obBaseApp = new COM("hMailServer.Application");
$database = $obBaseApp->Database;
if ( strlen($account_password) == 32 ) {
$sql = "Update hm_accounts SET accountpassword='$account_password', accountpasswordencryption=$md5_value WHERE accountaddress='$account_address'"; (or ID)
$execute = $database->ExecuteSQL($sql);
}
If I would get an exception or "FALSE" if it fails, all would be ok and we don't need additional properties or methods as far as I can see.
Gruenie

Post by **martin** » 2006-10-22 17:04

I've added that to the 4.3 branch. Only required a change on one line.

That SQL statement will only fail if the connection to the database server has been lost, or if the database has become corrupt in some way, so it's not likely..

By the way, that SQL statement may fail if $account_address contains a '. But perhaps you have already escaped() those.

(In 4.4, I've now implemented caching of distribution lists, aliases and all other object types except for IMAP folders and message lists.)

g0yjs0 · Post by **g0yjs0** » 2006-10-22 18:06

Martin,

I won't be so callous as to shamelessly beg you to add some of my wanted features to the next iteration of hMailServer. (But, if you feel like it, just do a search for my posts in the Features forum...)

My real reason for posting is that I just wanted to take a moment to say "Thank you!" for the fantastic and free resource to which you devote a whopping amount of time in development and support. I'm looking forward to 4.3 becoming stable any day now so I can deploy it and then wait for the creamy goodness of 4.4 at a later date.

Thanks again, Martin!

gruenie · Post by **gruenie** » 2006-10-22 18:30

Hi Martin,
you have added it to the 4.3. branch?
Cool, thank you!

The statement will only fail, if the db-connection has been lost or if the
db became corrupt? What is, if the statement includes an error, so that
the statement will not be executed?
To hold it as simple as possible, I asked you for a possibility to use the
select-statement together with the db-method, because to be sure, that
all worked as espected I would finish with a select to see if the update
was successful.
My usernames never include a ', only alphanumerics, underlines and
points are allowed, but nevertheless thanks for the advice!
Gruenie

Post by **martin** » 2006-10-22 18:40

Yes, 4.3. And yes, it will ofcourse fail if you include a syntax error as well.

gruenie · Post by **gruenie** » 2006-10-22 18:42

Cool, thank you very much!

Failing with an exception or by returning false?

Post by **martin** » 2006-10-22 18:42

Exception...

gruenie · Post by **gruenie** » 2006-10-22 18:45

Ok, fine, thanx!

Slug · Post by **Slug** » 2006-10-23 03:20

Hey Martin

What version number will "modified tarpitting" be in ???

Thanks
Michael

westdam · Post by **westdam** » 2006-10-23 10:07

mmm probabily on a 4.x version where x is above 4. Hehe michael as i understand martin will add the antispam measure (like advanced tarpitting or sender id , ecc ecc ) in the 4 version. Probabily he would see how the cache will improve the server performance.. I think cache is great but it's a bit hard to manage..

Post by **martin** » 2006-10-23 11:25

I don't really plan the scope of more than one version in head. I follow the number of votes the features have had though. Tarpitting is in place 10-12 or so, so I'm guessing perhaps in 4.5.

The thing is that I will try to keep the releases smaller and release more often instead. If I just start to add every request anyone wants it will be like 4.3 - it will take forever.

westdam · Post by **westdam** » 2006-10-23 14:00

oh yes i understand and agree martin, i like your poll based feature list. I'll just wait, i like hmailserver as is right now.. Bye marco

Slug · Post by **Slug** » 2006-10-23 14:05

martin wrote:I don't really plan the scope of more than one version in head. I follow the number of votes the features have had though. Tarpitting is in place 10-12 or so, so I'm guessing perhaps in 4.5.

I'll be back in time for 4.5

should be about 2 months if I'm right

Michael

maroli · Post by **maroli** » 2006-10-24 22:43

In what version is Pop collecting being build in?

gmouse · Post by **gmouse** » 2006-10-24 22:44

maroli wrote:In what version is Pop collecting being build in?

It's already been implemented. It's called external accounts. I'm still interested in anti-spam for that though.

maroli · Post by **maroli** » 2006-10-24 22:50

gmouse wrote:
maroli wrote:In what version is Pop collecting being build in?
It's already been implemented. It's called external accounts. I'm still interested in anti-spam for that though.

I am testing 4.3 b242 (if I am right), but cannot find that option. Can you tell e where to find it?

Post by **martin** » 2006-10-25 00:11

Much confusion here.

To end the discussion: :
The external accounts are found in the account settings. So open up settings for an account in hMailServer Administrator, go to the External accounts tab and add the externa account here.

thniels · Post by **thniels** » 2006-10-25 14:44

gmouse wrote:It's already been implemented. It's called external accounts. I'm still interested in anti-spam for that though.

That would indeed be marvellous!

- Thomas

Post by **martin** » 2006-11-05 00:27

Now the 4.4 feature implementation is ready. Testing and documentation remaining..

Slug · Post by **Slug** » 2006-11-05 06:43

martin wrote:Now the 4.4 feature implementation is ready. Testing and documentation remaining..

Excellent, where do I sign up for 4.4 alpha's

Michael

CraigHarris · Post by **CraigHarris** » 2006-11-06 00:36

martin wrote:Now the 4.4 feature implementation is ready. Testing and documentation remaining..

Is it worth skipping the stable 4.3 release in that case, and going straight to 4.4?

matty · Post by **matty** » 2006-11-06 18:07

Is it worth skipping the stable 4.3 release in that case, and going straight to 4.4?

please no... we are anxiously awaiting a stable 4.3 here. especially grey listing.

Post by **martin** » 2006-11-06 18:15

hMailServer 4.3 will be released before I even put up an alpha of 4.4 here. I don't have the time to maintain two parallell versions..

As for 4.3, it will be put up as stable in a few days unless someone finds a serious issue in the current build. The 4.3 build is probably already more stable than any previous 4.x-version..

westdam · Post by **westdam** » 2006-11-06 19:20

i agree completely with martin..
4.3 is very very stable right now..

mbreitba · Post by **mbreitba** » 2006-11-06 22:00

I would also say that 4.3 is quite stable at this time. The last fix regarding the possible memory leaks seems to have drastically reduced our memory usage. We've processed nearly 100,000 messages since Saturday afternoon, and no performance issues at all.

Post by **martin** » 2006-11-06 22:31

(I know I wrote that it was a leak. But it actually wasn't really a leak. It was more that hMailServer kept some connection objects in memory even though the client has disconnected. The code that detects whether a client has disconnected sometimes come up with the wrong result. Having said that, from a user perspective it looks exactly like a leak

Shiloh · Post by **Shiloh** » 2006-11-07 18:39

I agree that the latest build is stable. We are pumping email through it without any errors or slowdowns. We have processed 167,915 messages since Saturday without any problem. And thanks to greylisting, we have blocked even more spam. I am scared to guess how many messages that would be without greylisting. Anyway, it is completely stable.

^DooM^ · Post by **^DooM^** » 2006-11-07 21:10

Time to put it up as stable then I feel.

mbreitba · Post by **mbreitba** » 2006-11-07 21:12

I would second that. We just transitioned to the 246 build, and barring any unexpected issues, it's as stable as all of the previous builds. We installed it about 20 minutes ago, and it's already processed 1573 messages without incident.

cveillon · Post by **cveillon** » 2006-11-07 23:17

My servers have processed over 50,000 messages with no problems (since B244 that is). I think it's very stable.

I also want to mention that greylisting is FANTASTIC! I cannot say enough about it.

Post by **martin** » 2006-11-08 00:40

Yes, I will put it up as stable in a few days..

g0yjs0 · Post by **g0yjs0** » 2006-11-10 13:56

Any word on this? I'd really like to get the new version deployed this weekend.

Post by **martin** » 2006-11-10 14:03

I haven't really had time for it yet. I've been rather busy at my day-time-job this week. I will try to go through the installation and check that there isn't anything stupid missing edit: tomorrow morning.. After that I'll put it up as stable.

g0yjs0 · Post by **g0yjs0** » 2006-11-12 20:03

Thanks, Martin!

Post by **martin** » 2006-11-12 20:06

(I'm testing it at the moment.. Just going through the installed files and checking that it looks correct. Will put it up as stable after that)

CraigHarris · Post by **CraigHarris** » 2006-11-12 22:11

martin wrote:(I'm testing it at the moment.. Just going through the installed files and checking that it looks correct. Will put it up as stable after that)

Really? .... 4.4 as stable, like this week?

Boost · Post by **Boost** » 2006-11-12 22:21

It's the 4.3 he is testing.

Post by **martin** » 2006-11-12 22:50

Boost is right, it's the 4.3 I'm finalizing. The 4.4 features have been implemented though. Will finish up an alpha during the upcoming week.

CraigHarris · Post by **CraigHarris** » 2006-11-13 01:06

Just confusing that this thread is half about 4.3 yet titles 4.4 .... thought it was strange that 4.4 would go up stable at same time as 4.3 !!!

gjblajian · Post by **gjblajian** » 2006-11-15 01:40

Martin, I hate to add this to this thread but I am not sure it really belongs anywhere else either. At one time I think I remember you saying that features would be added based on demand. Is there a page on the site that tracks the current top ten or so most requested features? If not, would it be possible to add such a page to the site? It's not so much a feature request for the application as for your website.

And my apologies if this is in the wrong forum or has been asked for before.

richardys · Post by **richardys** » 2006-11-15 10:46

http://www.hmailserver.com/devnet/?page ... te_results

ikshadow · Post by **ikshadow** » 2006-11-15 14:30

Global White List needs more votes.

http://www.hmailserver.com/forum/viewto ... viewresult

Check it out and support it if you like the idea.

Blue Ninja · Post by **Blue Ninja** » 2006-11-15 16:28

The SPF / Backup MX feature needs more votes, too

http://www.hmailserver.com/forum/viewto ... 7643#37643

Slug · Post by **Slug** » 2006-11-16 09:37

The third one "Enable ClamAv Scanning of Compressed Attachments" can be removed, as clamav now does this.

Michael

westdam · Post by **westdam** » 2006-11-16 17:17

yep unless you have 88.5 version if i dont remember wrong..

g0yjs0 · Post by **g0yjs0** » 2006-11-18 14:55

martin wrote:(I'm testing it at the moment.. Just going through the installed files and checking that it looks correct. Will put it up as stable after that)

And yet, it's still not posted as stable....

Should we be concerned?

^DooM^ · Post by **^DooM^** » 2006-11-18 16:25

Not at all. It is very stable. the issues that were preventing martin putting up as stable were minor issues. I guess he just wanted to get it all right first. Better safe than sorry. I am using 4.3 B248 in production now and I am also cautious.

Boost · Post by **Boost** » 2006-11-18 16:33

martin said in another post:

I will put it up as stable on sunday if nothing happens before that. Reason I haven't done it yet is that I have had limited time to spend on this forum last days (company kick-off last days), and when I put it up as stable I want to be able to monitor what's happening more closely.

Post by **martin** » 2006-11-18 17:59

The latest build doesn't have any known big issues as far as I know. The reason it has not been put up as stable is just that I have had little time to spend on the project the last days because of a company kickoff on my daytime job, and I when i put it up as stable I want to be able to monitor it more closely. I will put it up as stable tomorrow (sunday) unless something occurs before that..