Error: quota-status: Client sent invalid recipient address: Invalid character in path
Any idea what this is?
Jun 26 23:16:34
quota-status(u...@example.com)<4975>: Error:
quota-status: Client sent invalid recipient address: Invalid character
in path
I have this enabled in my config
service quota-status {
client_limit = 1
executable = quota-status -p postfix
unix_listener /var/spool/postfix/private/dovquota {
mode = 0666
user = postfix
}
}
Lefteris
Re: Problem in doveadm import dovecot 2.2
My doveadm import -DV ... doveadm import -u USER mdbox:/xxx/xxx/xxx/xxx/xxx/xxx/ DIR all" Debug: Loading modules from directory: /usr/lib/dovecot/modules Debug: Module loaded: /usr/lib/dovecot/modules/lib10_quota_plugin.so Debug: Loading modules from directory: /usr/lib/dovecot/modules/doveadm Debug: Skipping module doveadm_acl_plugin, because dlopen() failed: /usr/lib/dovecot/modules/doveadm/lib10_doveadm_acl_plugin.so: undefined symbol: acl_user_module (this is usually intentional, so just ignore this message) Debug: Skipping module doveadm_expire_plugin, because dlopen() failed: /usr/lib/dovecot/modules/doveadm/lib10_doveadm_expire_plugin.so: undefined symbol: expire_set_deinit (this is usually intentional, so just ignore this message) Debug: Module loaded: /usr/lib/dovecot/modules/doveadm/lib10_doveadm_quota_plugin.so Debug: Module loaded: /usr/lib/dovecot/modules/doveadm/lib10_doveadm_sieve_plugin.so Debug: Skipping module doveadm_fts_plugin, because dlopen() failed: /usr/lib/dovecot/modules/doveadm/lib20_doveadm_fts_plugin.so: undefined symbol: fts_user_get_language_list (this is usually intentional, so just ignore this message) Debug: Skipping module doveadm_mail_crypt_plugin, because dlopen() failed: /usr/lib/dovecot/modules/doveadm/libdoveadm_mail_crypt_plugin.so: undefined symbol: mail_crypt_box_get_pvt_digests (this is usually intentional, so just ignore this message) doveadm(te...@x.zzz.com): Debug: Added userdb setting: mail=mdbox:/var/spool/imap/partition4/f4/te...@x.zzz.com: INDEX=/var/lib/imap/user/f4/te...@x.zzz.com doveadm(te...@x.zzz.com): Debug: Added userdb setting: plugin/password=:q! doveadm(te...@x.zzz.com): Debug: Added userdb setting: plugin/quota_rule=*:bytes=1024M doveadm(te...@x.zzz.com): Debug: Effective uid=111, gid=111, home=/var/lib/imap/user/f4/te...@x.zzz.com doveadm(te...@x.zzz.com): Debug: Quota root: name=User quota backend=dict args=:file:/var/lib/imap/user/f4/ te...@x.zzz.com/dovecot-quota doveadm(te...@x.zzz.com): Debug: Quota rule: root=User quota mailbox=* bytes=1073741824 messages=0 doveadm(te...@x.zzz.com): Debug: Quota grace: root=User quota bytes=107374182 (10%) doveadm(te...@x.zzz.com): Debug: dict quota: user=te...@x.zzz.com, uri=file:/var/lib/imap/user/f4/te...@x.zzz.com/dovecot-quota, noenforcing=0 doveadm(te...@x.zzz.com): Debug: fs: root=/var/spool/imap/partition4/f4/ te...@x.zzz.com, index=/var/lib/imap/user/f4/te...@x.zzz.com, indexpvt=, control=, inbox=, alt= doveadm(te...@x.zzz.com): Debug: quota: quota_over_flag check: quota_over_script unset - skipping doveadm(te...@x.zzz.com): user-lookup(te...@x.zzz.com)Debug: Added userdb setting: mail=mdbox:/var/spool/imap/partition4/f4/te...@x.zzz.com: INDEX=/var/lib/imap/user/f4/te...@x.zzz.com doveadm(te...@x.zzz.com): user-lookup(te...@x.zzz.com)Debug: Added userdb setting: plugin/password= doveadm(te...@x.zzz.com): user-lookup(te...@x.zzz.com)Debug: Added userdb setting: plugin/quota_rule=*:bytes=1024M doveadm(te...@x.zzz.com): Debug: Effective uid=111, gid=111, home=/var/lib/imap/user/f4/te...@x.zzz.com doveadm(te...@x.zzz.com): Debug: Quota root: name=User quota backend=dict args=:file:/var/lib/imap/user/f4/ te...@x.zzz.com/dovecot-quota doveadm(te...@x.zzz.com): Debug: Quota rule: root=User quota mailbox=* bytes=1073741824 messages=0 doveadm(te...@aprendiz.x-br.com): Debug: Quota grace: root=User quota bytes=107374182 (10%) doveadm(te...@aprendiz.x-br.com): Debug: dict quota: user= te...@aprendiz.x-br.com, uri=file:/var/lib/imap/user/f4/ te...@aprendiz.x-br.com/dovecot-quota, noenforcing=0 doveadm(te...@aprendiz.x-br.com): Debug: fs: root=/var/backup/bak1/Backup_Teste/f4/te...@aprendiz.x-br.com, index=, indexpvt=, control=, inbox=, alt= doveadm(te...@aprendiz.x-br.com): Debug: quota: quota_over_flag check: quota_over_script unset - skipping doveadm(te...@aprendiz.x-br.com): Debug: Trash: Mailbox opened because: import doveadm(te...@aprendiz.x-br.com): Debug: Trash/Rascunhos: Mailbox opened because: import doveadm(te...@aprendiz.x-br.com): Debug: Trash/SPAM: Mailbox opened because: import doveadm(te...@aprendiz.x-br.com): Debug: Drafts: Mailbox opened because: import doveadm(te...@aprendiz.x-br.com): Debug: Sent: Mailbox opened because: import doveadm(te...@aprendiz.x-br.com): Debug: Itens enviados: Mailbox opened because: import doveadm(te...@aprendiz.x-br.com): Debug: Rascunhos: Mailbox opened because: import doveadm(te...@aprendiz.x-br.com): Debug: Alma 2: Mailbox opened because: import doveadm(te...@aprendiz.x-br.com): Debug: Alma 2/Corpo 3: Mailbox opened because: import doveadm(te...@aprendiz.x-br.com): Debug: Alma 2/Corpo 2: Mailbox opened because: import doveadm(te...@aprendiz.x-br.com): Debug: Alma 1: Mailbox opened because: import doveadm(te...@aprendiz.x-br.com): Debug: Alma 1/Corpo 1: Mailbox opened because: import doveadm(te...@aprendiz.x-br.com): Debug: Alma 1/Corpo
Dovecot LMTP mixing up users on multi-recipient mail
Hi,
I've upgraded a mailstore from Debian Jessie (aka oldstable) with
Dovecot 2.2.13 to Debian Buster (next stable) with Dovecot 2.3.4.1
today. It worked pretty well, except that we're seeing error messages
very similar to this old thread
https://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/2015-July/101396.html
It appears to be happening when a mail with multiple recipients on this
message store is getting delivered through lmtp.
Jun 27 11:47:36 lxmhs74 dovecot: lmtp(user1)<47683>:
Error: open(/var/cache/dovecot/index/n/user2n/.INBOX/dovecot.index.cache)
failed: Permission denied (euid=3814520() egid=12(man) missing +x
perm: /var/cache/dovecot/index/n/user2, dir owned by 3391995:12 mode=0700)
user1 uid is 3814520, user2n uid is 3391995. Dovecot appears to be trying
to deliver the message to user1 while using the index directory of user2n.
Further configuration:
- message store is on NFS
- cache directory is on local disk
- users are coming from LDAP, one UID per user
user_attrs = cn=user,homeDirectory=home,uidNumber=uid,gidNumber=gid
- index directory is calculated from the username
maildir:~/Maildir:INDEX=/var/cache/dovecot/index/%-1.1n/%n
Despite the error messages (which appear dozens of times per delivery
attempt) delivery seems to work. Workaround was to set
lmtp_destination_recipient_limit = 1
on the postfix in front of the message store.
Despite the report linked above being quite old, I can't recall having
issues with 2.2.13.
=== doveconf -n ===
# OS: Linux 4.19.0-5-amd64 x86_64 Debian 10.0
# Hostname: lxmhs74.srv.lrz.de
default_vsz_limit = 512 M
deliver_log_format = from=<%e>, size=%p, message-id=<%m>, status=%$
imap_id_log = *
imap_id_send = *
lda_mailbox_autocreate = yes
lda_mailbox_autosubscribe = yes
login_greeting = Dovecot ready.
login_log_format_elements = user=<%u> method=%m rip=%r lip=%l mpid=%e %c
session=<%{session}> cipher=<%k>
mail_gid = mstore
mail_location = maildir:~/Maildir:INDEX=/var/cache/dovecot/index/%-1.1n/%n
mail_plugins = quota listescape
mail_uid = mstore
managesieve_notify_capability = mailto
managesieve_sieve_capability = fileinto reject envelope encoded-character
vacation subaddress comparator-i;ascii-numeric relational regex imap4flags
copy include variables body enotify environment mailbox date index ihave
duplicate mime foreverypart extracttext
mmap_disable = yes
namespace inbox {
inbox = yes
location =
mailbox Drafts {
auto = subscribe
special_use = \Drafts
}
mailbox Junk {
auto = subscribe
special_use = \Junk
}
mailbox Sent {
auto = subscribe
special_use = \Sent
}
mailbox "Sent Messages" {
special_use = \Sent
}
mailbox Trash {
auto = subscribe
special_use = \Trash
}
prefix = INBOX.
separator = .
type = private
}
passdb {
args = /etc/dovecot/dovecot-ldap.conf
driver = ldap
}
plugin {
quota = maildir
quota_rule = *:storage=1024M
quota_rule2 = INBOX.Trash:ignore
quota_status_nouser = DUNNO
quota_status_overquota = 452 4.2.2 Mailbox is full
quota_status_success = DUNNO
quota_warning = storage=95%% quota-warning 95 %u
quota_warning2 = storage=90%% quota-warning 90 %u
sieve = ~/currently-active-script.sieve
sieve_dir = ~/sieve
}
pop3_uidl_format = %v-%u
protocols = imap lmtp sieve pop3
quota_full_tempfail = yes
service anvil {
client_limit = 3000
unix_listener anvil {
group = sudo
mode = 0660
}
}
service auth {
client_limit = 3000
unix_listener auth-userdb {
group = mstore
mode = 0660
user = mstore
}
}
service imap-login {
client_limit = 1024
inet_listener imap {
port = 143
}
inet_listener imaps {
port = 993
ssl = yes
}
process_limit = 2500
process_min_avail = 4
service_count = 0
}
service imap {
process_limit = 8192
}
service lmtp {
inet_listener lmtp {
port = 24
}
}
service managesieve-login {
inet_listener sieve {
port = 4190
}
inet_listener sieve_deprecated {
port = 2000
}
service_count = 1
}
service managesieve {
process_limit = 1024
}
service pop3-login {
inet_listener pop3 {
port = 110
}
inet_listener pop3s {
port = 995
ssl = yes
}
}
service quota-status {
client_limit = 20
executable = quota-status -p postfix
inet_listener {
port = 12340
}
}
service quota-warning {
executable = script /etc/dovecot/quotawarnmsg.sh
unix_listener quota-warning {
group = mstore
mode = 0660
user = mstore
}
user = mstore
}
service stats {
process_limit = 8192
}
ssl_cert =
Re: Applying Dovecot for a large / deep folder-hierarchy archive.
> Also you may run into client limits i ve seen this with outlook, > apple mail, thunderbird via imap in the past Thanks for this note Robert, it was not really an aspect that I was considering. We are operating our groupware services user access through both Evolution Groupware and KDE Kontact / KMail on Debian Linux workstations. Hopefully if there is a client issue it should be local to only one groupware client. I will be sure to study / investigate in this - client - area should any issues that are not traceable to the server-side arise. Many thanks, Arnold Opio Oree Chief Executive Officer Parallax Digital Technologies arnoldo...@parallaxdt.com http://www.parallaxdt.com tel : +44 (0) 333 577 8587 fax : +44 (0) 20 8711 2477 Parallax Digital Technologies is a trading name of Parallax Global Limited. U.K. Co. No. 08836288 The contents of this e-mail are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient you are to delete this e-mail immediately, disregard its contents and disclose them to no other persons. -Original Message- From: Robert Schetterer via dovecot Reply-To: Robert Schetterer To: dovecot@dovecot.org Subject: Re: Applying Dovecot for a large / deep folder-hierarchy archive. Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 12:53:49 +0200 Am 27.06.2019 um 07:35 schrieb Aki Tuomi via dovecot: > On 26.6.2019 22.12, Arnold Opio Oree via dovecot wrote: > > Hello to you all, > > > > I'd like to ask about my intended application of Dovecot to create > > a folder-hierarchy for storing our enterprise emails, which are > > treated as live data rather than archives for compliance or > > occasional / reactive retrieval. > > > > The data is presently not that large (a few gigabytes), but it is > > expected to grow rapidly. Up to this stage the data has been > > contained > > in a Microsoft Exchange mailbox (2013), and then in an offline PST. > > The move to the offline PST was by necessity, as the large number > > of > > folders, and depth of hierarchy to my best understanding caused the > > exchange server / outlook / evolution mail clients to begin to > > malfunction. To cope with this the archive was broken up and the > > bulk stored in the offline PST and the most active components > > stored in > > online Exchange mailboxes. > > > > I have some understanding of the fs mbox format, and also the > > mitigations to be made for certain characters / strings. My main > > concern is whether Dovecot is likely to be able to cope well with a > > large number of folders / depth of hierarcy. > > > > I will really appreciate any help / advice you can give. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Arnold Opio Oree > > > > Hi! > > Dovecot 2.2.34/2.3 supports unlimited folder depth, the only limiting > factor is that the total name may not exceed 4096 bytes. Also > individual > folder names may not exceed 255 bytes. > > Prior to that the limit is 255 per folder up to 16 levels. > > I can't recommend using 'mbox' storage format, please consider using > maildir or sdbox instead. > > Aki >
Re: Applying Dovecot for a large / deep folder-hierarchy archive.
Am 27.06.2019 um 07:35 schrieb Aki Tuomi via dovecot: On 26.6.2019 22.12, Arnold Opio Oree via dovecot wrote: Hello to you all, I'd like to ask about my intended application of Dovecot to create a folder-hierarchy for storing our enterprise emails, which are treated as live data rather than archives for compliance or occasional / reactive retrieval. The data is presently not that large (a few gigabytes), but it is expected to grow rapidly. Up to this stage the data has been contained in a Microsoft Exchange mailbox (2013), and then in an offline PST. The move to the offline PST was by necessity, as the large number of folders, and depth of hierarchy to my best understanding caused the exchange server / outlook / evolution mail clients to begin to malfunction. To cope with this the archive was broken up and the bulk stored in the offline PST and the most active components stored in online Exchange mailboxes. I have some understanding of the fs mbox format, and also the mitigations to be made for certain characters / strings. My main concern is whether Dovecot is likely to be able to cope well with a large number of folders / depth of hierarcy. I will really appreciate any help / advice you can give. Best regards, Arnold Opio Oree Hi! Dovecot 2.2.34/2.3 supports unlimited folder depth, the only limiting factor is that the total name may not exceed 4096 bytes. Also individual folder names may not exceed 255 bytes. Prior to that the limit is 255 per folder up to 16 levels. I can't recommend using 'mbox' storage format, please consider using maildir or sdbox instead. Aki Also you may run into client limits i ve seen this with outlook, apple mail, thunderbird via imap in the past -- [*] sys4 AG https://sys4.de, +49 (89) 30 90 46 64 Schleißheimer Straße 26/MG,80333 München Sitz der Gesellschaft: München, Amtsgericht München: HRB 199263 Vorstand: Patrick Ben Koetter, Marc Schiffbauer, Wolfgang Stief Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Florian Kirstein
Re: Applying Dovecot for a large / deep folder-hierarchy archive.
> If you change layout to FS you are basically required to migrate > users > to it. You cannot change layout "on the fly". Duly noted. Many thanks, Arnold Opio Oree Chief Executive Officer Parallax Digital Technologies arnoldo...@parallaxdt.com http://www.parallaxdt.com tel : +44 (0) 333 577 8587 fax : +44 (0) 20 8711 2477 Parallax Digital Technologies is a trading name of Parallax Global Limited. U.K. Co. No. 08836288 The contents of this e-mail are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient you are to delete this e-mail immediately, disregard its contents and disclose them to no other persons. From: Aki Tuomi via dovecot Reply-To: Aki Tuomi To: arnoldo...@parallaxict.com, Arnold Opio Oree < arnold.o...@parallaxict.com>, Dovecot Mailing List Subject: Re: Applying Dovecot for a large / deep folder-hierarchy archive. Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 13:44:25 +0300 If you change layout to FS you are basically required to migrate users to it. You cannot change layout "on the fly". Aki On 27.6.2019 13.42, Arnold Opio Oree via dovecot wrote: > Hello Aki, > > Thank you greatly for your advice, it is really valuable to know that > the key criteria for our desired application of Dovecot are > supported (our groupware stacks are running Dovecot 2.3.4.1) prior to > commencing operations to configure Dovecot and migrate enterprise > data. > > Thanks for the word of caution with regards to mbox format; that was > a > slip of the tongue on my part, our groupware stacks are using Maildir > format (I will also look into sdbox as I had not been aware of it as > a > viable alternative), although we have yet to change the LAYOUT to fs > - which I think should be better for meeting our deep directory > criteria, and also for managing mailbox data directly in the > filesystem (please do let me know if you think otherwise). > > The only areas of uncertainty for me now are whether Dovecot will be > able to change directory layout to fs where emails are already held > in > user mailboxes with Maildir++ directory layout; and secondly what the > best protocol will be to get the Outlook PST data into the Dovecot > mailbox. I will research these points, if however there is any best > practice that you are aware of, then it will be great to know. > > Very best, > > Arnold Opio Oree > Chief Executive Officer > Parallax Digital Technologies > > arnoldo...@parallaxdt.com > > > http://www.parallaxdt.com > > > tel : +44 (0) 333 577 8587 > fax : +44 (0) 20 8711 2477 > > Parallax Digital Technologies is a trading name of Parallax Global > Limited. U.K. Co. No. 08836288 > > The contents of this e-mail are confidential. If you are not the > intended recipient you are to delete this e-mail immediately, > disregard > its contents and disclose them to no other persons. > > -Original Message- > From: Aki Tuomi via dovecot < > dovecot@dovecot.org > > > Reply-To: Aki Tuomi < > aki.tu...@open-xchange.com > > > To: > arnoldo...@parallaxict.com > , Arnold Opio Oree < > arnold.o...@parallaxict.com > >, Dovecot Mailing List < > dovecot@dovecot.org > > Subject: Re: Applying Dovecot for a large / deep folder-hierarchy > archive. > Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 08:35:17 +0300 > > On 26.6.2019 22.12, Arnold Opio Oree via dovecot wrote: > > Hello to you all, > > > > I'd like to ask about my intended application of Dovecot to create > > a > > folder-hierarchy for storing our enterprise emails, which are > > treated > > as live data rather than archives for compliance or occasional / > > reactive retrieval. > > > > The data is presently not that large (a few gigabytes), but it is > > expected to grow rapidly. Up to this stage the data has been > > contained > > in a Microsoft Exchange mailbox (2013), and then in an offline PST. > > The move to the offline PST was by necessity, as the large number > > of > > folders, and depth of hierarchy to my best understanding caused the > > exchange server / outlook / evolution mail clients to begin to > > malfunction. To cope with this the archive was broken up and the > > bulk > > stored in the offline PST and the most active components stored in > > online Exchange mailboxes. > > > > I have some understanding of the fs mbox format, and also the > > mitigations to be made for certain characters / strings. My main > > concern is whether Dovecot is likely to be able to cope well with a > > large number of folders / depth of hierarcy. > > > > I will really appreciate any help / advice you can give. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Arnold Opio Oree > > > > Hi! > > Dovecot 2.2.34/2.3 supports unlimited folder depth, the only limiting > factor is that the total name may not exceed 4096 bytes. Also > individual > folder names may not exceed 255 bytes. > > Prior to that the limit is 255 per folder up to 16 levels. > > I can't recommend using 'mbox' storage format, please consider using > maildir or sdbox instead. > > Aki > >
Re: Applying Dovecot for a large / deep folder-hierarchy archive.
If you change layout to FS you are basically required to migrate users to it. You cannot change layout "on the fly". Aki On 27.6.2019 13.42, Arnold Opio Oree via dovecot wrote: > Hello Aki, > > Thank you greatly for your advice, it is really valuable to know that > the key criteria for our desired application of Dovecot are > supported (our groupware stacks are running Dovecot 2.3.4.1) prior to > commencing operations to configure Dovecot and migrate enterprise data. > > Thanks for the word of caution with regards to mbox format; that was a > slip of the tongue on my part, our groupware stacks are using Maildir > format (I will also look into sdbox as I had not been aware of it as a > viable alternative), although we have yet to change the LAYOUT to fs - which > I think should be better for meeting our deep directory criteria, and also > for managing mailbox data directly in the filesystem (please do let me know > if you think otherwise). > > The only areas of uncertainty for me now are whether Dovecot will be > able to change directory layout to fs where emails are already held in > user mailboxes with Maildir++ directory layout; and secondly what the > best protocol will be to get the Outlook PST data into the Dovecot > mailbox. I will research these points, if however there is any best > practice that you are aware of, then it will be great to know. > > Very best, > > Arnold Opio Oree > Chief Executive Officer > Parallax Digital Technologies > > arnoldo...@parallaxdt.com > > http://www.parallaxdt.com > > tel : +44 (0) 333 577 8587 > fax : +44 (0) 20 8711 2477 > > Parallax Digital Technologies is a trading name of Parallax Global > Limited. U.K. Co. No. 08836288 > > The contents of this e-mail are confidential. If you are not the > intended recipient you are to delete this e-mail immediately, disregard > its contents and disclose them to no other persons. > > -Original Message- > From: Aki Tuomi via dovecot > Reply-To: Aki Tuomi > To: arnoldo...@parallaxict.com, Arnold Opio Oree < > arnold.o...@parallaxict.com>, Dovecot Mailing List Subject: Re: Applying Dovecot for a large / deep folder-hierarchy > archive. > Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 08:35:17 +0300 > > On 26.6.2019 22.12, Arnold Opio Oree via dovecot wrote: >> Hello to you all, >> >> I'd like to ask about my intended application of Dovecot to create a >> folder-hierarchy for storing our enterprise emails, which are treated >> as live data rather than archives for compliance or occasional / >> reactive retrieval. >> >> The data is presently not that large (a few gigabytes), but it is >> expected to grow rapidly. Up to this stage the data has been >> contained >> in a Microsoft Exchange mailbox (2013), and then in an offline PST. >> The move to the offline PST was by necessity, as the large number of >> folders, and depth of hierarchy to my best understanding caused the >> exchange server / outlook / evolution mail clients to begin to >> malfunction. To cope with this the archive was broken up and the bulk >> stored in the offline PST and the most active components stored in >> online Exchange mailboxes. >> >> I have some understanding of the fs mbox format, and also the >> mitigations to be made for certain characters / strings. My main >> concern is whether Dovecot is likely to be able to cope well with a >> large number of folders / depth of hierarcy. >> >> I will really appreciate any help / advice you can give. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Arnold Opio Oree >> > Hi! > > Dovecot 2.2.34/2.3 supports unlimited folder depth, the only limiting > factor is that the total name may not exceed 4096 bytes. Also > individual > folder names may not exceed 255 bytes. > > Prior to that the limit is 255 per folder up to 16 levels. > > I can't recommend using 'mbox' storage format, please consider using > maildir or sdbox instead. > > Aki > >
Re: Applying Dovecot for a large / deep folder-hierarchy archive.
Hello Aki, Thank you greatly for your advice, it is really valuable to know that the key criteria for our desired application of Dovecot are supported (our groupware stacks are running Dovecot 2.3.4.1) prior to commencing operations to configure Dovecot and migrate enterprise data. Thanks for the word of caution with regards to mbox format; that was a slip of the tongue on my part, our groupware stacks are using Maildir format (I will also look into sdbox as I had not been aware of it as a viable alternative), although we have yet to change the LAYOUT to fs - which I think should be better for meeting our deep directory criteria, and also for managing mailbox data directly in the filesystem (please do let me know if you think otherwise). The only areas of uncertainty for me now are whether Dovecot will be able to change directory layout to fs where emails are already held in user mailboxes with Maildir++ directory layout; and secondly what the best protocol will be to get the Outlook PST data into the Dovecot mailbox. I will research these points, if however there is any best practice that you are aware of, then it will be great to know. Very best, Arnold Opio Oree Chief Executive Officer Parallax Digital Technologies arnoldo...@parallaxdt.com http://www.parallaxdt.com tel : +44 (0) 333 577 8587 fax : +44 (0) 20 8711 2477 Parallax Digital Technologies is a trading name of Parallax Global Limited. U.K. Co. No. 08836288 The contents of this e-mail are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient you are to delete this e-mail immediately, disregard its contents and disclose them to no other persons. -Original Message- From: Aki Tuomi via dovecot Reply-To: Aki Tuomi To: arnoldo...@parallaxict.com, Arnold Opio Oree < arnold.o...@parallaxict.com>, Dovecot Mailing List Subject: Re: Applying Dovecot for a large / deep folder-hierarchy archive. Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 08:35:17 +0300 On 26.6.2019 22.12, Arnold Opio Oree via dovecot wrote: > Hello to you all, > > I'd like to ask about my intended application of Dovecot to create a > folder-hierarchy for storing our enterprise emails, which are treated > as live data rather than archives for compliance or occasional / > reactive retrieval. > > The data is presently not that large (a few gigabytes), but it is > expected to grow rapidly. Up to this stage the data has been > contained > in a Microsoft Exchange mailbox (2013), and then in an offline PST. > The move to the offline PST was by necessity, as the large number of > folders, and depth of hierarchy to my best understanding caused the > exchange server / outlook / evolution mail clients to begin to > malfunction. To cope with this the archive was broken up and the bulk > stored in the offline PST and the most active components stored in > online Exchange mailboxes. > > I have some understanding of the fs mbox format, and also the > mitigations to be made for certain characters / strings. My main > concern is whether Dovecot is likely to be able to cope well with a > large number of folders / depth of hierarcy. > > I will really appreciate any help / advice you can give. > > Best regards, > > Arnold Opio Oree > Hi! Dovecot 2.2.34/2.3 supports unlimited folder depth, the only limiting factor is that the total name may not exceed 4096 bytes. Also individual folder names may not exceed 255 bytes. Prior to that the limit is 255 per folder up to 16 levels. I can't recommend using 'mbox' storage format, please consider using maildir or sdbox instead. Aki
