[Dbmail-dev] [DBMail 0000766]: dbmail-pop3d crash

2009-02-13 Thread Mantis Bug Tracker
A NOTE has been added to this issue. == http://dbmail.org/mantis/view.php?id=766 == Reported By:waza123 Assigned To: =

[Dbmail-dev] [DBMail 0000766]: dbmail-pop3d crash

2009-02-13 Thread Mantis Bug Tracker
A NOTE has been added to this issue. == http://dbmail.org/mantis/view.php?id=766 == Reported By:waza123 Assigned To: =

[Dbmail-dev] [DBMail 0000766]: dbmail-pop3d crash

2009-02-13 Thread Mantis Bug Tracker
A NOTE has been added to this issue. == http://dbmail.org/mantis/view.php?id=766 == Reported By:waza123 Assigned To: =

Re: [Dbmail-dev] Re: [DBMail 0000754]: single instance storage for headervalues

2009-02-13 Thread Paul J Stevens
Michael Monnerie wrote: > Aren't most searches of the form "%searchstring%"? If yes, All text-searches (against headervalues or messageblks/mimeparts) are like that. Searches against XXXfield tables are exact, though possibly case-insensitive. > the index is useless, as you can only search "sear

Re: [Dbmail-dev] Bug in IMAP search dbmail 2.2 - search for "Full Message"

2009-02-13 Thread Michael Monnerie
On Freitag 13 Februar 2009 Paul J Stevens wrote: > Please do file a bug. In as the "Boeing Bug", number 767. BTW: you can't select dbmail 2.2.11 in mantis, it's missing. mfg zmi -- // Michael Monnerie, Ing.BSc- http://it-management.at // Tel: 0660 / 415 65 31 .

[Dbmail-dev] [DBMail 0000767]: search for "Full Message" via IMAP generates wrong SELECT

2009-02-13 Thread Mantis Bug Tracker
The following issue has been SUBMITTED. == http://dbmail.org/mantis/view.php?id=767 == Reported By:zmi Assigned To: ==

Re: [Dbmail-dev] Re: [DBMail 0000754]: single instance storage for headervalues

2009-02-13 Thread Michael Monnerie
On Freitag 13 Februar 2009 Paul J Stevens wrote: > It didn't get lost. I'm eagerly awaiting patches suitable for merging Yeah, me too :-)) But there are open questions that need an answer before any patch can be thought of. Paul, you know the code, so I guess you can answer these. Example: *Si

RE: [Dbmail-dev] Help on debug an issue with IMAPD

2009-02-13 Thread Jorge Bastos
> > Paul, > Now it was just LMTPD that died, the problem must be in LMTPD on > message > insert I believe. > > Maybe IMAPD died because it was out of memory or other reason. > And about this Paul, did you saw the emails? :P ___ Dbmail-dev mailing lis

Re: [Dbmail-dev] Bug in IMAP search dbmail 2.2 - search for "Full Message"

2009-02-13 Thread Paul J Stevens
Michael Monnerie wrote: > Should I create a bug report for this? Anyone able to reproduce it on > their systems? Please do file a bug. -- Paul Stevens paul at nfg.nl NET FACILITIES GROUP

Re: [Dbmail-dev] Re: [DBMail 0000754]: single instance storage for headervalues

2009-02-13 Thread Paul J Stevens
Michael, It didn't get lost. I'm eagerly awaiting patches suitable for merging :-) Michael Monnerie wrote: > Did this message get lost? I don't know as I didn't get any answer. And > it could be valuable for performance & storage used. > > On Montag 09 Februar 2009 Michael Monnerie wrote: >>

RE: [Dbmail-dev] Help on debug an issue with IMAPD

2009-02-13 Thread Jorge Bastos
Paul, Now it was just LMTPD that died, the problem must be in LMTPD on message insert I believe. Maybe IMAPD died because it was out of memory or other reason. > -Original Message- > From: dbmail-dev-boun...@dbmail.org [mailto:dbmail-dev- > boun...@dbmail.org] On Behalf Of Jorge Bastos >

Re: [Dbmail-dev] Bug in IMAP search dbmail 2.2 - search for "Full Message"

2009-02-13 Thread Michael Monnerie
Should I create a bug report for this? Anyone able to reproduce it on their systems? On Montag 09 Februar 2009 Michael Monnerie wrote: > In Kmail, I start a search for "Full message" (that's "Vollständige > Nachricht" in german) with content ZMI_FullMessage on an IMAP Folder. > The IMAP command g

Re: [Dbmail-dev] Re: [DBMail 0000754]: single instance storage for headervalues

2009-02-13 Thread Michael Monnerie
Did this message get lost? I don't know as I didn't get any answer. And it could be valuable for performance & storage used. On Montag 09 Februar 2009 Michael Monnerie wrote: > On Freitag 06 Februar 2009 Paul J Stevens wrote: > > Interesting idea. VARCHAR for mysql can be 0x (65535) bytes > >