On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:06:35 +0200
Stephan Bosch step...@rename-it.nl wrote:
You are using mUTF-7 in folder names. According to the Sieve
specification, you must use the UTF-8 version. The fileinto command
internally translates this to the mUTF-7 equivalent, so that the IMAP
server sees it
Nikita Koshikov schreef:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:06:35 +0200
Stephan Bosch step...@rename-it.nl wrote:
You are using mUTF-7 in folder names. According to the Sieve
specification, you must use the UTF-8 version. The fileinto command
internally translates this to the mUTF-7 equivalent, so that
Hi,
I've got latest source code from
http://dovecot.org/nightly/dovecot-20090731.tar.gz
It's a minor bug that mysql.h test fails because CFLAGS are missing from
this test.
Tomppa
checking for mysql_init in -lmysqlclient... yes
checking mysql.h usability... yes
checking mysql.h presence
Thank you very much, Timo!
I apologise if you see me as being rude. It's more that I was getting insane.
I can't speak about other IMAP server lists, but perhaps on some fora, I
could have got some assistance :) But well, you solved one of my problems.
Thank you very, very much in advance!
I have
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 01:33:27PM -0400, Timo Sirainen wrote:
I think it's a bad idea. Besides the UID problems causing all kinds of
trouble with clients (some clients ignore UIDVALIDITY completely (Apple
Mail, at least used to)
Woah! That's indeed stupid from them...
and the result is
Be a man, Jim, and write this in public.
[QUOTE] Jim Reid[/QUOTE]
On 31 Jul 2009, at 09:36, A. van Harten wrote:
Sorry, but the answers on this mail group are written with as few
words as
possible - if it was written in Finnish, I'd understand just as much
as I
do now.
Googling on a
Be a man, Jim, and write this in public.
I personally do not think that personal disagreements have to be discussed
on a public list, since they do not concern everybody. That being said and
without judging, I will say this: there is also no need to flame or provoke
further. Please stay on
I totally agree with Wouter.
1. I reached my goal by writing the words I wrote
2. There was no need for ANYONE to make comments on that.
I consider this thread as closed.
Kind regards, Vriendelijke groeten, Venlig hilsen,
Albert van Harten
Denmark
[QUOTE] Wouter van der Schagt[/QUOTE]
Be a
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 01:21:40PM -0400, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Just dovecot-uidlist, or also dovecot.index*?
Just dovecot-uidlist.
If you delete both, UIDVALIDITY is changed. If you delete only
dovecot-uidlist, it'll probably preserve UIDVALIDITY and just give new UIDs
to messages (because
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:06:04 +0200
Stephan Bosch step...@rename-it.nl wrote:
Well, I guess the final situation is caused by the fact that the folder
name is encoded in mUTF7 two times.
At my end the following Sieve script works as expected:
require fileinto;
fileinto тест;
Result:
On Jul 31, 2009, at 4:47 AM, Thomas Hummel wrote:
and the result is that opening a message from
list opens a completely different mail)
That I don't get since, even if UIDALIDITY change, and even if new
messages
arrive in the mailbox between dovecot-uidlist erasement and
recreation, since
On Jul 31, 2009, at 3:56 AM, Tomi Vainio wrote:
I got a second thought about this. Maybe this time I just should set
all extra include definitions through CPPFLAGS or mysql can be set
--with-mysql and of cource move linking flags to LDFLAGS?
Yes, CPPFLAGS and LDFLAGS are the right way to add
On Jul 31, 2009, at 5:25 AM, Thomas Hummel wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 01:21:40PM -0400, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Just dovecot-uidlist, or also dovecot.index*?
Just dovecot-uidlist.
Then I don't really get it. You want to store index files on NFS, but
not control files? Doesn't really
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:30:30AM -0400, Timo Sirainen wrote:
For example if you have mails with
UIDs 1, 2, 5 and 10 and you delete dovecot-uidlist and dovecot.index*,
Dovecot gives them UIDs 1, 2, 3, 4.
Ok, I get it.
But the only way I can think of a client can detect that UIDs are
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 18:15 +0200, Thomas Hummel wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:30:30AM -0400, Timo Sirainen wrote:
For example if you have mails with
UIDs 1, 2, 5 and 10 and you delete dovecot-uidlist and dovecot.index*,
Dovecot gives them UIDs 1, 2, 3, 4.
Ok, I get it.
But
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:26:04PM -0400, Timo Sirainen wrote:
i.e. Dovecot gets also the next_uid from index file, and starts
assigning UIDs beginning from it.
Clear. I probably deleted indexes as well in my test and didn't notice a new
UIDVALIDITY.
But what about the client's cache ? Does
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:26:04PM -0400, Timo Sirainen wrote:
So, to come back at my initial question :
Is it correct to say that what's wrong in dovecot-uidlist lost is the potential
lost of UIDVALIDITY and nextUID (if indexes are deleted as well) ?
I mean dovecot-uidlist lost alone has not
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 18:40 +0200, Thomas Hummel wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:26:04PM -0400, Timo Sirainen wrote:
i.e. Dovecot gets also the next_uid from index file, and starts
assigning UIDs beginning from it.
Clear. I probably deleted indexes as well in my test and didn't notice
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 18:56 +0200, Thomas Hummel wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:49:04PM -0400, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Most clients cache mails based on UIDVALIDITY and UID, so if UIDVALIDITY
changes, it re-downloads all mails. If just UIDs change, then it's
handled exactly the same way
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 18:59 +0200, Thomas Hummel wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:50:11PM -0400, Timo Sirainen wrote:
But I still don't understand how you could lose dovecot-uidlist but not
indexes.
In a setup like mine where INDEXES and CONTROL point to different places for
instance.
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 01:00:38PM -0400, Timo Sirainen wrote:
In a setup like mine where INDEXES and CONTROL point to different places
for instance.
Is there something wrong with such a solution ?
But aren't both of them in local disk then?
No. At the moment, the Maildirs and the
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 07:04:32PM +0200, Thomas Hummel wrote:
Since I plan to split dovecot and postfix on 2 different servers but want to
be
able to use anyone of them back to run both postfix and dovecot if one of them
crash, I plan to put indexes and control files on NFS.
Another
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 01:00:10PM -0400, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Then again, client doesn't know if UID changes. It handles those
situations exactly the same way as if message was expunged and a new
message was added.
So on what criteria does a client fetch a message ? Does it just ask anything
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 01:15:07PM -0400, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Right, it'll easily cause all kinds of caching related problems even
with the mail_nfs_*=yes settings (which also slow things down).
Ok.
And some users use multiple clients.
That's right.
BTW. If you're going to run Postfix on
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 19:15 +0200, Thomas Hummel wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 01:00:10PM -0400, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Then again, client doesn't know if UID changes. It handles those
situations exactly the same way as if message was expunged and a new
message was added.
So on what
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 19:17 +0200, Thomas Hummel wrote:
BTW. If you're going to run Postfix on both servers and both deliver
mails to any users, you're still going to have the same caching problems
if you're using Dovecot's deliver.
No, I'm going to run postfix on one, dovecot on the
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 19:20 +0200, Thomas Hummel wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 01:18:17PM -0400, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Depends on client.
Ok but I don't understand why you say that a client, though caching UID and
UIDVALIDITY, makes no difference between a new message and some UID change
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 01:20:17PM -0400, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Well, that's pretty much the same thing. I meant that if Dovecots on
both servers touch the same mailbox at the same time, there are caching
problems. Regardless of what part of Dovecot touches it.
Of course, sorry, I'm not used
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 01:22:37PM -0400, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Because client thinks UID = message. If a message's UID changes, the
client has no idea that it's still the same message.
Yes but what does and UID has changes from the client pint of view then ? You
mean something like, in its
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 19:27 +0200, Thomas Hummel wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 01:22:37PM -0400, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Because client thinks UID = message. If a message's UID changes, the
client has no idea that it's still the same message.
Yes but what does and UID has changes from the
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 01:34:59PM -0400, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Thanks for your explanations and patience Timo!
--
Thomas Hummel | Institut Pasteur
hum...@pasteur.fr | Pôle informatique - systèmes et réseau
On 31.7.2009 18.33, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Jul 31, 2009, at 3:56 AM, Tomi Vainio wrote:
I got a second thought about this. Maybe this time I just should set
all extra include definitions through CPPFLAGS or mysql can be set
--with-mysql and of cource move linking flags to LDFLAGS?
Yes,
32 matches
Mail list logo
