Re: replication is unable to fix uidvalidity difference

2007-09-12 Thread Ken Murchison
David Carter wrote: On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, Ken Murchison wrote: Is there any reason why we want this to be a separate command, rather than just adding UIDVALIDITY to the MAILBOXES command? MAILBOXES dumps the current state of mailboxes on the sever (including the UIDvalidity with this patch).

Re: replication is unable to fix uidvalidity difference

2007-09-12 Thread David Carter
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, Ken Murchison wrote: Is there any reason why we want this to be a separate command, rather than just adding UIDVALIDITY to the MAILBOXES command? MAILBOXES dumps the current state of mailboxes on the sever (including the UIDvalidity with this patch). You need a separate c

Re: replication is unable to fix uidvalidity difference

2007-09-12 Thread Ken Murchison
David Carter wrote: On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Bron Gondwana wrote: Reading the sync_client protocol, I notice that do_mailbox_single doesn't actually send the uidvalidity as part of the local mailbox status from the server, so it can't even tell there's a difference. [...], something to keep in mind

Re: replication is unable to fix uidvalidity difference

2007-09-11 Thread David Carter
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Bron Gondwana wrote: Reading the sync_client protocol, I notice that do_mailbox_single doesn't actually send the uidvalidity as part of the local mailbox status from the server, so it can't even tell there's a difference. [...], something to keep in mind next time there's a

Re: replication is unable to fix uidvalidity difference

2007-09-03 Thread Bron Gondwana
On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 07:18:06PM +1000, Bron Gondwana wrote: > > On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 10:07:36 +0100 (BST), "David Carter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > said: > > On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Bron Gondwana wrote: > > > Reading the sync_client protocol, I notice that do_mailbox_single > > > doesn't actually send t

Re: replication is unable to fix uidvalidity difference

2007-09-03 Thread Bron Gondwana
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 10:24:43 +0100 (BST), "David Carter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Bron Gondwana wrote: > > > My reading was a reconstruct without cyrus.index. If you reconstruct > > without a header it will get a new UniqueID, but if you reconstruct > > without an index

Re: replication is unable to fix uidvalidity difference

2007-09-03 Thread David Carter
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Bron Gondwana wrote: My reading was a reconstruct without cyrus.index. If you reconstruct without a header it will get a new UniqueID, but if you reconstruct without an index it doesn't know the UidValidity, so it sets it time(). Agreed. Unfortunately, that's a rather mor

Re: replication is unable to fix uidvalidity difference

2007-09-03 Thread Bron Gondwana
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 10:07:36 +0100 (BST), "David Carter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Bron Gondwana wrote: > > > Our "checkreplication" script has managed to find uidvalidity > > differences between a couple of folders. I'm not sure how they > > crept in, probably other bugs c

Re: replication is unable to fix uidvalidity difference

2007-09-03 Thread David Carter
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Bron Gondwana wrote: Our "checkreplication" script has managed to find uidvalidity differences between a couple of folders. I'm not sure how they crept in, probably other bugs causing reconstructs with missing index files or something. Anyway... Reading the sync_client pro