Just in case someone else has the same problem, I had to change the
following two variables
mail_home = /mnt/home/imapd/%d/%n
mail_location = dbox:/mnt/home/imapd/%d/%n
to
mail_home = /mnt/home/imapd/%d/%n
mail_location = dbox:~/
"When mail_location begins with%h or~/, its permissions are co
Hi everyone,
I feel like I am missing something obvious here. I have dovecot up
and running and every piece of mail is given user read/write
permission. I see the option mail_gid, but I do not see anyplace to set
the group permissions. I see the below wiki talking about new home
directo
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>
> The main problem is that it's difficult to do any "real world" tests with
> IMAP, especially when users are using many different kinds of IMAP clients.
> So I'm very interested in hearing some numbers (and disk IO graphs for a
> few weeks
On 28.3.2012, at 13.13, Hangas wrote:
> Timo Sirainen iki.fi> writes:
>
>>> 4. Are there real-world benchmarks showing measurable differences between
>>> maildir, sdbox mdbox?
>>
>> Not that I'm aware of. So far everyone I've tried to ask have replaced their
>> whole mail system and their sto
Timo Sirainen iki.fi> writes:
> > 4. Are there real-world benchmarks showing measurable differences between
> >maildir, sdbox mdbox?
>
> Not that I'm aware of. So far everyone I've tried to ask have replaced their
> whole mail system and their storage, so the before/after numbers can't be
> co
I think a few people have complained about this combination being somewhat
broken, resulting in bogus "cached message size wrong" errors sometimes. This
fixes it:
http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.0/rev/9b2931607063
On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 08:53 -0700, Daniel Miller wrote:
> Does the "doveadm purge" operation delete unused attachments?
With mdbox, yeah. With sdbox they're deleted immediately when the last
message pointing to an attachment is expunged.
Does the "doveadm purge" operation delete unused attachments?
--
Daniel
The only solution I found was to use IMAP protocol to read from
sdbox and write as mdbox.
Dsync was NOT a solution at all. Sorry about
that.
On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 23:58:35 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On
Sun, 2011-03-06 at 15:46 -0500, Joan Moreau wrote:
>
>> No, as you know
very well: I
On Sun, 2011-03-06 at 15:46 -0500, Joan Moreau wrote:
> No, as you know very well: I sent plenty of emails about this matter at
> that time on this mailng list, but nobody found any solutions, so, I
> gave up.
> Dsync is too buggy to convert sdbox to mdbox.
I think I fixed all the crashes y
* Sdbox is using far too much I/O on a busy server, I had to switch
to
mdbox
* Converting from Maildir to s/mdbox is easy
Are you saying sdbox uses more disk I/O than maildir? That's
unexpected.
No.
I am saying that sbbox is not sustainable when having very large
mailbox, IO becomes too h
On 5.3.2011, at 4.14, Joan Moreau wrote:
> * Sdbox
> is using far too much I/O on a busy server, I had to switch to mdbox
..
> * Converting from Maildir to s/mdbox is easy
Are you saying sdbox uses more disk I/O than maildir? That's unexpected.
> * Converting
> from sdbox to mdbox has been a c
Hi,
Just giving my own experience:
* I am using dovecot 2.0.9
(well, now 2.0.10 since today) in production without problems
* Sdbox
is using far too much I/O on a busy server, I had to switch to mdbox
*
Mdbox is running well so far, and resources (IO or CPU) are not an issue
anymore.
On 4.3.2011, at 23.05, Douglas Mortensen wrote:
> I guess to get more specific, some of the questions I have regarding dbox vs.
> mdbox are:
>
> 1. What is the advantage to using multiple files?
mdbox in theory uses less disk I/O for "normal users".
> 2. What is the advantage to using a single
Thanks for the input Ed. The evening before you sent the message, I actually
had decided to do just what you recommended (stick with what we know). We have
since put the server into production, and things are working well. We built to
a physical box, rather than a VM. I do like xen VMs myself. W
Hi
I really appreciate feedback. We're on a time-crunch to migrate from a debian 5
box w/ dovecot 1.1 to a debian 6 box w/ dovecot 2.0.9 (built from source).
I would have thought if time is tight then stick with what you know and
migrate later? If you aren't building your new box as a virtu
What are the pros and cons of both? Especially in regards to performance,
stability, management & maintenance?
I really appreciate feedback. We're on a time-crunch to migrate from a debian 5
box w/ dovecot 1.1 to a debian 6 box w/ dovecot 2.0.9 (built from source).
Thanks,
-
Doug Mortensen
Netw
I'm trying to clean up the code for Dovecot v2.0 and I just keep coming
back to the same thought: Is having the super-fast maildir ->
single-dbox migration really actually a good idea?
Some problems with it:
1. Makes the code more complex.. And I've already fixed many bugs
related to that, maybe
On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 14:44 +1000, James Brown wrote:
> I am migrating our mail server from Courier-IMAP to Dovecot. We
> currently use maildir storage format.
>
> What are the advantages and disadvantages of Dovecot's dbox format
> over maildir?
Speed. Nothing else. Maildir can handle errors
I am migrating our mail server from Courier-IMAP to Dovecot. We
currently use maildir storage format.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of Dovecot's dbox format
over maildir?
Does anyone have any performance benchmarks for both? What do people
use to test performance?
We are run
On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 13:54:17 -0400 Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-04-10 at 01:29 +0800, Xueron Nee wrote:
> > It should not be a bug. I am using a Chinese version of Becky, the tips
> > when I create a mailbox is not described much clear.
> >
> > When use IMAP in Becky, It can create 3
On Fri, 2009-04-10 at 01:29 +0800, Xueron Nee wrote:
> It should not be a bug. I am using a Chinese version of Becky, the tips
> when I create a mailbox is not described much clear.
>
> When use IMAP in Becky, It can create 3 type folders:
> 1. For store mail items
> 2. As a parent of sub folders
Is dbox be suitable enough for product use?
I am so interested in the alt_path feature :) That was what I need :)
On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 11:57:04 -0400 Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-04-09 at 23:27 +0800, Xueron Nee wrote:
> > Oh, yes.
> >
> > I use `Becky` MUA to do such tests. It adds a
It should not be a bug. I am using a Chinese version of Becky, the tips
when I create a mailbox is not described much clear.
When use IMAP in Becky, It can create 3 type folders:
1. For store mail items
2. As a parent of sub folders (some mail server supports the folder
which can contain both mail
On Thu, 2009-04-09 at 23:27 +0800, Xueron Nee wrote:
> Oh, yes.
>
> I use `Becky` MUA to do such tests. It adds a slash after the folder
> name.
>
> It's ok without the slash :)
Sounds like a bug in Becky. The / suffix means that you really want to
create a "directory", not a selectable mailbo
Oh, yes.
I use `Becky` MUA to do such tests. It adds a slash after the folder
name.
It's ok without the slash :)
Thanks Timo ^_^
0004 LIST "" *
* LIST (\HasNoChildren) "/" "INBOX"
* LIST (\Noselect \HasNoChildren) "/" "kkk"
* LIST (\HasNoChildren) "/" "Trash"
* LIST (\HasNoChildren) "/" "Junk
On Apr 9, 2009, at 5:37 AM, Xueron Nee wrote:
But when I create dir through imap with `create` command, it only
creates the dir onder ~/dbox/mailboxes, such as
~/dbox/mailboxes/newfolder. There was no `dbox-Mails` dir created. So
the newfolder was 'noselect'.
Are you sure you created the mailb
Hi,
I have just tested the dbox format mailbox, it works fine.
But when I create dir through imap with `create` command, it only
creates the dir onder ~/dbox/mailboxes, such as
~/dbox/mailboxes/newfolder. There was no `dbox-Mails` dir created. So
the newfolder was 'noselect'.
But the new folders
Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Apr 2, 2009, at 10:08 PM, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
I can see where large mailservers would benefit from significant write
performance increases - but unless the server is being actively
limited by the local delivery agent, what other performance benefits
does this offer
On Apr 2, 2009, at 10:08 PM, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
I can see where large mailservers would benefit from significant
write performance increases - but unless the server is being
actively limited by the local delivery agent, what other performance
benefits does this offer?
In particular,
I can see where large mailservers would benefit from significant write
performance increases - but unless the server is being actively limited
by the local delivery agent, what other performance benefits does this
offer?
In particular, is there any increase in READ performance by using dbox?
Odhiambo Washington wrote:
One last question: Can dbox co-exist with Maildir?
Depends on what you mean by "co-exist". It is possible to define
per-user mail storage within the userdb. It is also possible (I
believe) to have multiple namespaces, and the mailstorage can be
different for eac
On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 11:12 -0500, Justin Krejci wrote:
> Aside from the code is there any documentation on using dbox with a
> non-Dovecot LDA?
The only way to do that is to call Dovecot's deliver from your whatever
other MDA. Only Dovecot can write to dbox format and it's not ever going
to chang
Aside from the code is there any documentation on using dbox with a
non-Dovecot LDA?
We have our own MTA and currently use Dovecot with Maildir only for message
retrieval and just have our MTA write the message files to our own directory
structure (Dovecot per user mailbox locations stored in m
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 4:06 AM, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
> Odhiambo Washington wrote:
>
>> I thought so. Now I have seen, read and understood (so far)
>> http://wiki.dovecot.org/LDA/Exim.
>> However I do not see any examples for configuring dovecot for dbox. Is it
>> as
>> easy as s/maildir/dbox/g
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 4:06 AM, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
> Odhiambo Washington wrote:
>
>> I thought so. Now I have seen, read and understood (so far)
>> http://wiki.dovecot.org/LDA/Exim.
>> However I do not see any examples for configuring dovecot for dbox. Is it
>> as
>> easy as s/maildir/dbox/g
Odhiambo Washington wrote:
I thought so. Now I have seen, read and understood (so far)
http://wiki.dovecot.org/LDA/Exim.
However I do not see any examples for configuring dovecot for dbox. Is it as
easy as s/maildir/dbox/g in the following:
mail_location =
maildir:/var/spool/virtual/%d/%n/Maildi
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 10:17 PM, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI <
edua...@kalinowski.com.br> wrote:
> Odhiambo Washington wrote:
> > Hello people,
> >
> > Since the invention of this storage called dbox, I have never quite
> gotten
> > round to understanding it, nor getting to use it. It seems so strange t
Odhiambo Washington wrote:
> Hello people,
>
> Since the invention of this storage called dbox, I have never quite gotten
> round to understanding it, nor getting to use it. It seems so strange to me
> and I must ask a few stupid questions about it.
> I use the MTA to deliver mail to Maildir, eithe
Hello people,
Since the invention of this storage called dbox, I have never quite gotten
round to understanding it, nor getting to use it. It seems so strange to me
and I must ask a few stupid questions about it.
I use the MTA to deliver mail to Maildir, either in ~/Maildir or
/some/path/%d/%n/Mai
On Mon, 2009-03-30 at 18:26 -0400, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> maildir: ~330 -> ~110 msgs/sec, 9789 msgs/60 sec
With maildir_very_dirty_syncs=yes (just committed to v1.2 hg):
~1100 -> ~110 msgs/sec, 11904 msgs/60 sec.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-dbox-redesign/
Looks like multi-dbox scales pretty nicely. Even after 100k messages the
peak saved msgs/sec is the same as the initial saved msgs/sec, even if
the average slows down somewhat.
I tested this by first deleting mailbox, then running "imaptest&q
Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 22:49 +, Alan Swanson wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> Trying to upgrade from Dovecot 1.1.11 to 1.1.13 but having a problem
>> with imap process segfaulting. Backtrace is below. I presume it's
>> related to these MAILBOXDIR changes but the only documentation is t
On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 22:49 +, Alan Swanson wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Trying to upgrade from Dovecot 1.1.11 to 1.1.13 but having a problem
> with imap process segfaulting. Backtrace is below. I presume it's
> related to these MAILBOXDIR changes but the only documentation is the
> single line in the new
Hi.
Trying to upgrade from Dovecot 1.1.11 to 1.1.13 but having a problem
with imap process segfaulting. Backtrace is below. I presume it's
related to these MAILBOXDIR changes but the only documentation is the
single line in the news for changing to ":MAILBOXDIR=mailboxes" when
using dbox.
Current
Ok - at this time I am using the following non-default settings:
Samba server - smb.conf
[Mailstorage]
ea support = Yes
use sendfile = Yes
fake oplocks = Yes
delete readonly = Yes
Dovecot - dovecot.conf
mmap_disable = yes
dotlock_use_excl = yes
fsync_disable = yes
lock_me
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Allen Belletti wrote:
I would add that having fewer, larger files should make backups much
more feasible. There's a certain amount of overhead for each file
That's true for full backups. I don't defend Maildir, esp. because i
On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 11:29 +0100, Mikkel wrote:
> Hi Timo
>
> I have a few comments. Please just disregard them if I have
> misunderstood your design.
>
> Regarding your storage plan
> I find it very important that users can be stored in different locations
> because:
This you misunderstood.
I would add that having fewer, larger files should make backups much
more feasible. There's a certain amount of overhead for each file
operation (especially for us GFS people!) and reducing the number of
files will reduce that overhead.
Right now our backups (done via rsync) take a pretty scary
Hi Timo
I have a few comments. Please just disregard them if I have
misunderstood your design.
Regarding your storage plan
I find it very important that users can be stored in different locations
because:
1. Discount users could be placed on cheap storage while others are
offered premium ser
On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 17:35 -0500, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 14:32 -0800, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> > Timo Sirainen wrote:
> > > This is about how to implement multiple msgs/file dbox format. The
> > > current v1.1's one msg/file design would stay pretty much the same and
> > > it w
On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 14:32 -0800, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> Timo Sirainen wrote:
> > This is about how to implement multiple msgs/file dbox format. The
> > current v1.1's one msg/file design would stay pretty much the same and
> > it would be compatible with this new design.
> >
>
> Out of curiosit
Timo Sirainen wrote:
> This is about how to implement multiple msgs/file dbox format. The
> current v1.1's one msg/file design would stay pretty much the same and
> it would be compatible with this new design.
>
Out of curiosity, what's the advantage to going to multiple messages per
file? Wouldn
This is about how to implement multiple msgs/file dbox format. The
current v1.1's one msg/file design would stay pretty much the same and
it would be compatible with this new design.
dbox directories with multiple msgs/file would be like:
~/dbox/storage/ has the actual mail data for all mailboxes
On Sat, July 12, 2008 13:29, Robert Schetterer wrote:
> i dont wanna use dict , i only wanna use the qutoas out of sql crated by
> postfixadmin
>
> has someone used this ever ?
driver = mysql
connect = host=localhost dbname=postfix user=postfix password=password
default_pass_scheme = MD5-CRYPT
p
On 7/12/2008, Charles Marcus ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The only caveat I can surmise is that, since nothing else [currently] supports
dbox format except dovecot, you'd have to use dovecot's LDA - which is not a
problem, actually desirable for index updates, but it would be good to see some
of
On 7/12/2008, Timo Sirainen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The only caveat I can surmise is that, since nothing else [currently]
supports dbox format except dovecot, you'd have to use dovecot's LDA -
which is not a problem, actually desirable for index updates, but it
would be good to see some offi
Timo Sirainen schrieb:
On Jul 12, 2008, at 7:08 PM, Robert Schetterer wrote:
concat('*:storage=', ROUND( mailbox.quota / 1024 ) ) AS quota, \
cant work with dict, working on it
It doesn't work with v1.1 in general. Use "AS quota_rule". Also an
easier way to use bytes quota is:
concat('*:by
On Jul 12, 2008, at 7:08 PM, Robert Schetterer wrote:
concat('*:storage=', ROUND( mailbox.quota / 1024 ) ) AS quota, \
cant work with dict, working on it
It doesn't work with v1.1 in general. Use "AS quota_rule". Also an
easier way to use bytes quota is:
concat('*:bytes=', mailbox.quota)
Robert Schetterer schrieb:
Timo Sirainen schrieb:
On Sat, 2008-07-12 at 17:07 +0200, Robert Schetterer wrote:
sorry i read dict stuff
and i dont understand it
i have no idea to make this work out of the wiki
..
ok i allready have my quota tables
from postfix admin
and i am unclear about the q
Timo Sirainen schrieb:
On Sat, 2008-07-12 at 17:07 +0200, Robert Schetterer wrote:
sorry i read dict stuff
and i dont understand it
i have no idea to make this work out of the wiki
..
ok i allready have my quota tables
from postfix admin
and i am unclear about the query i need
as well how to s
On Sat, 2008-07-12 at 17:07 +0200, Robert Schetterer wrote:
> sorry i read dict stuff
> and i dont understand it
> i have no idea to make this work out of the wiki
..
> ok i allready have my quota tables
> from postfix admin
> and i am unclear about the query i need
> as well how to set this in plu
Timo Sirainen schrieb:
On Sat, 2008-07-12 at 16:38 +0200, Robert Schetterer wrote:
Timo Sirainen schrieb:
On Sat, 2008-07-12 at 16:12 +0200, Robert Schetterer wrote:
I think existing quotas in sql could be used
if dovecot would ignore that no
maildir storage is used and simply
interpretes exis
On Sat, 2008-07-12 at 16:38 +0200, Robert Schetterer wrote:
> Timo Sirainen schrieb:
> > On Sat, 2008-07-12 at 16:12 +0200, Robert Schetterer wrote:
> I think existing quotas in sql could be used
> if dovecot would ignore that no
> maildir storage is used and simply
> interprete
Timo Sirainen schrieb:
On Sat, 2008-07-12 at 16:12 +0200, Robert Schetterer wrote:
I think existing quotas in sql could be used
if dovecot would ignore that no
maildir storage is used and simply
interpretes existing maildirsize files, which maybe created out of
existing sql quota entries
( but
On Sat, 2008-07-12 at 16:12 +0200, Robert Schetterer wrote:
> >> I think existing quotas in sql could be used
> >> if dovecot would ignore that no
> >> maildir storage is used and simply
> >> interpretes existing maildirsize files, which maybe created out of
> >> existing sql quota entries
> >> (
Timo Sirainen schrieb:
On Sat, 2008-07-12 at 14:10 +0200, Robert Schetterer wrote:
i only wanna use the qutoas out of sql crated by
postfixadmin
What does this mean? Does it create the maildirsize files? Can't you
have Dovecot look up the limits from SQL itself in user_query?
sorry i was uncle
On Sat, 2008-07-12 at 14:10 +0200, Robert Schetterer wrote:
> >> i only wanna use the qutoas out of sql crated by
> >> postfixadmin
> >
> > What does this mean? Does it create the maildirsize files? Can't you
> > have Dovecot look up the limits from SQL itself in user_query?
>
> sorry i was uncl
Timo Sirainen schrieb:
On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 07:41 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 7/2/2008, Timo Sirainen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
You're also concentrating on only maildir format. Yes, there the limit
is 26 keywords and I don't have plans to improve it. But for example
with dbox format ther
On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 07:41 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 7/2/2008, Timo Sirainen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > You're also concentrating on only maildir format. Yes, there the limit
> > is 26 keywords and I don't have plans to improve it. But for example
> > with dbox format there is no such
Timo Sirainen schrieb:
On Sat, 2008-07-12 at 13:29 +0200, Robert Schetterer wrote:
Hi all,
i am asking myself
how quota is done with dbox in a virtual setup
with having quotas in sql
dove 1.1.1
says quota maildir: No maildir storages, ignoring quota
lda means quota maildir: No maildir storages,
On Sat, 2008-07-12 at 13:29 +0200, Robert Schetterer wrote:
> Hi all,
> i am asking myself
> how quota is done with dbox in a virtual setup
> with having quotas in sql
>
> dove 1.1.1
> says quota maildir: No maildir storages, ignoring quota
> lda means quota maildir: No maildir storages, ignoring
Hi all,
i am asking myself
how quota is done with dbox in a virtual setup
with having quotas in sql
dove 1.1.1
says quota maildir: No maildir storages, ignoring quota
lda means quota maildir: No maildir storages, ignoring quota
which is right
i dont wanna use dict , i only wanna use the qutoas o
On 7/2/2008, Timo Sirainen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
You're also concentrating on only maildir format. Yes, there the limit
is 26 keywords and I don't have plans to improve it. But for example
with dbox format there is no such limit.
Cool! But three dbox questions:
1. Do you consider dbox to
On Thu, 2008-04-17 at 13:30 -0400, Eric T wrote:
> Emailed about this with 1.1rc3 and didn't get a reply. Tried upgrading to
> 1.1rc4 and got the same crashing:
..
> Program terminated with signal 11, Segmentation fault.
> #0 0x004640f9 in mail_index_get_header_ext (view=0x0, ext_id=2,
> d
Emailed about this with 1.1rc3 and didn't get a reply. Tried upgrading to
1.1rc4 and got the same crashing:
Centos 5 (in openvz container)
2.6.18-53.1.4.el5.028stab053.4 #1 SMP Fri Jan 18 12:29:44 MSK 2008 x86_64
x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
/usr/local/dovecot/sbin/dovecot -n
# 1.1.rc4: /usr/local/d
Quoting Evaggelos Balaskas:
I use the same command ( via cron ) but my maildir folder with spam is
more than 50.000 emails !!! so ...
Don't run sa-learn over the same messages again, it will give you
nothing (sa-learn will ignore it), but it will take a lot of time
anyways. Simply move the m
Hi Evaggelos,
I use the same command ( via cron ) but my maildir folder with spam is
more than 50.000 emails !!! so ...
I had the same issue and I solved it with a little bash script. The
trick is to use the xargs function to break up the spam list in smaller
blocks (I also restrict spam pro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
thanks for the answer,
I use the same command ( via cron ) but my maildir folder with spam is
more than 50.000 emails !!! so ...
but my question wasnt about spamassassin (wrong mail list :) )
but with alternative mailbox format (like dbox) in dovecot
Evaggelos Balaskas wrote:
the problem i have with maildir is that programs like sa-learn (from
spamassassin) returns argument too long list and perhaps a lot of other
programs too.
I have never seen sa-learn giving me any problems while learning spam
from maildirs (often with tens of thousand
On 1/28/2008, Evaggelos Balaskas ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I though that with dbox i can easily use a simple solution.
Is there some other direction that i can see/learn/use???
No. Again - dbox is broken and WILL NEVER be fixed in 1.0.x version.
I guess you'll just have to use mbox or maildi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
no cant do :)
at least not yet, i cant just use a beta version to servers
(company policy).
The problem i used to have with mbox was a lot of locks,
the problem i have with maildir is that programs like sa-learn (from
spamassassin) returns argument to
On 1/28/2008, Evaggelos Balaskas ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
dovecot 1.0.10
Don't even try to use dbox with 1.0.x... it is completely broken.
If you want to play with it, you will have to use the 1.1 code
(currently at beta14)...
--
Best regards,
Charles
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I am trying to create a user with dbox format.
i get this error:
dovecot: Jan 28 13:45:34 Error: IMAP(ebal2): Mail storage creation
failed with mail_location: dbox:/var/mail/folders/testuser
dovecot: Jan 28 13:45:34 Error: child 5336 (imap) returned
Am Samstag, 19. Mai 2007 schrieb Timo Sirainen:
> 1) Have another human readable mailbox ID <-> name mapping file which
> is used if the binary index is corrupted. If mailboxes are
> created/deleted/renamed often, this would just slow things down. Might
> be a good idea optionally though.
The Mail
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 20:27 +0200, Gunter Ohrner wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 16. Mai 2007 schrieb Timo Sirainen:
> > > Yes, I think treating mailboxes similary to keywords is ideal. There
> > Except if you want to handle some mailboxes in a special way it's
> > easier if they're separated on disk. Such
Am Mittwoch, 16. Mai 2007 schrieb Gunter Ohrner:
> > mailboxes is a lot easier.They're based on filtering rules. I don't
> think they support "copying"
> messages. So the virtual folders are easily rebuilt by just re-applying
> the filters into all the messages.
Whoops, this yunk should not have b
Am Mittwoch, 16. Mai 2007 schrieb Timo Sirainen:
> > Yes, I think treating mailboxes similary to keywords is ideal. There
> Except if you want to handle some mailboxes in a special way it's
> easier if they're separated on disk. Such as renaming or deleting
> mailboxes is a lot easier.They're base
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 07:47 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
> >> Although one possibility would be treat mailboxes a bit similarly
> >> than keywords. So that when a message is copied to another mailbox,
> >> the message in dbox file is updated to contain information that it
> >> exists in such and
Would be nice if copying a message from one mailbox to another
wouldn't require actually reading+writing the whole message
contents. But I can't really figure out how to implement this
without requiring that there is only a single dbox storage which
contains the mails for all the mailboxes, and t
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 06:40 -0400, Bill Boebel wrote:
> > Although one possibility would be treat mailboxes a bit similarly than
> > keywords. So that when a message is copied to another mailbox, the
> > message in dbox file is updated to contain information that it exists in
> > such and such mail
On Sat, May 12, 2007 9:10 am, Timo Sirainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Fast copying
>
>
> Would be nice if copying a message from one mailbox to another wouldn't
> require actually reading+writing the whole message contents. But I can't
> really figure out how to implement this with
I don't think anyone uses dbox currently, so the whole format could
still be redesigned. So I was thinking about doing two major changes:
1. Rely on index files a lot more. The flags are already stored in index
files, so there's no need to waste I/O updating them to dbox files all
the time. They c
93 matches
Mail list logo
