On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 08:26:49PM -0400, Wesley Craig wrote:
> On 17 Oct 2010, at 06:53, Jeroen van Meeuwen (Kolab Systems) wrote:
> > I'm in favor to have (in our current X.Y.Z versioning schema) Z be bumped
> > with
> > bug-fixes only. If we keep it to bug-fixes only, this means we can rapidly
Sergio Bruder
Haxent Consultoria
email: bru...@haxent.com.br, telefones: 41 3362-1460, 41 9933-8764, skype:
sdbruder
Em 17/10/2010, às 06:42, Bron Gondwana escreveu:
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 04:36:10PM -0400, Wesley Craig wrote:
>> On 16 Oct 2010, at 00:51, Bron Gondwana wrote:
>>> There's a
On 17 Oct 2010, at 06:53, Jeroen van Meeuwen (Kolab Systems) wrote:
> I'm in favor to have (in our current X.Y.Z versioning schema) Z be bumped
> with
> bug-fixes only. If we keep it to bug-fixes only, this means we can rapidly
> release the fixes to the community.
I'm definitely in favor of th
Ok.. after several hours of testing.. I think I've come to a conclusion:
Reconstruct does not handle the case of a missing cyrus.index file well. It
aborts around mailbox.c:1517 and causes problems (I think the CRC contained in
cyrus.header is valid.. but the contents of cyrus.index are messed
Ugh.. looks like something is really wrong with my installation..
[r...@hawkmail1 bin]# chk_cyrus -P imap
Examining partition: imap
[r...@hawkmail1 bin]# chk_cyrus -P imap2
Examining partition: imap2
checking: imap2
Aborted
[r...@hawkmail1 bin]# chk_cyrus -P imap3
Examining partition: imap3
chec
This may help.. I've been encountering two problems:
1.
[r...@hawkmail1 s0765804]# mbpath user.s0765804
/metadata/imap2/O/user/s0765804
[r...@hawkmail1 s0765804]# mbpath -m user.s0765804
/metadata/imap2/O/user/s0765804
I'm expecting to see the physical path to the mail first.. and the metadata
Bron Gondwana wrote:
> > I'd like to see an open, public beta for 2.4.1. That will encourage
> > testing in a variety of environments by people who are interested in
> > evaluating and reporting back problems. It will hopefully avoid the
> > issues caused by over eager sysadmins deploying 2.4.1 t
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 04:36:10PM -0400, Wesley Craig wrote:
> On 16 Oct 2010, at 00:51, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> > There's a stack of small things accumulating that I think are going to
> > be enough to justify releasing 2.4.1 some time this week. The only
> > major blocker I can see is LSUB acros
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 02:16:21AM -0400, Carsey, Robert wrote:
> On one which did not work, I found:
> . SELECT INBOX
> * 76 EXISTS
> * 0 RECENT
> * FLAGS (\Answered \Flagged \Draft \Deleted \Seen)
> * OK [PERMANENTFLAGS (\Answered \Flagged \Draft \Deleted \Seen \*)] Ok
> * OK [UNSEEN 1] Ok
> * OK
