1.gif
Description: Binary data
1.gif
Description: Binary data
1.gif
Description: Binary data
2.gif
Description: Binary data
Hello everyone !
To anyone who helped me out with my problem about imap server beeing
very slow for only one user, I found where the problem was:
- this user's home directory is mounted over NFS (nis+autofs+nfs)
- he made a symbolic link /home/user/link pointing to /mnt/export/public
which is a pu
PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Antoine Jacoutot
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 9:56 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: need urgent help --> imap low perf for 1 user
Hi !
I'm running horde+imp (webmail system) with imap on Debian GNU/Linux
Woody and I'm having a problem with one of the
On Tue, 2002-12-03 at 17:02, Mark Crispin wrote:
> A 30MB mailbox, while large, is not ridiculously large. If the mailbox is in
> traditional UNIX mailbox format, it will have to read the entire file; but
> that should take no more than a few seconds unless I/O is very slow on your
> system. Usin
A 30MB mailbox, while large, is not ridiculously large. If the mailbox is in
traditional UNIX mailbox format, it will have to read the entire file; but
that should take no more than a few seconds unless I/O is very slow on your
system. Using mbx format will speed this up greatly.
100 seconds is
Hi !
I'm running horde+imp (webmail system) with imap on Debian GNU/Linux
Woody and I'm having a problem with one of the mail accounts.
Everything works great and fast except for one of the users, who has the
biggest mailbox (30M).
At first I though it was a php4 or mysql problem, but it does the
Hello, a message sent to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> by <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
with the subject 0, 0, 580, 600, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0) was scanned and found to contain a
virus called "Exploit-MIME.gen.exe" . The infected part of the message was Cleaned and
Quarantined b
This message is to announce the release of release candidate 1 of the
University of Washington's IMAP toolkit, version 2002 (imap-2002), on
ftp://ftp.cac.washington.edu/mail/imap-2002.RC1.tar.Z
The imap.tar.Z link now points to this version, and imap-2001a has been
moved to th
Mark Crispin wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 02:51:49 -0600, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> > I came across similar bug in Netscape 4.79: it can't cope with UIDs bigger
> > than 2**32-1, Netscape just doesn't display them!
>
> Do you mean 2**31-1?
Yes, that is what I'
On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 02:51:49 -0600, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> I came across similar bug in Netscape 4.79: it can't cope with UIDs bigger
> than 2**32-1, Netscape just doesn't display them!
Do you mean 2**31-1?
No IMAP implementation is required to cope with UIDs bigger than 2**
Pete Maclean wrote:
> ...
> Which means, in the worst
> pathological case of a mailbox containing just two messages, one with a UID
> of 1 and one with a UID of 4294967295 (the highest possible), a search
> would take 2 weeks or more. (This is calculated based on timings mad
On Fri, 31 May 2002 22:09:11 +0200 (CEST), Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:
> *sigh*, and it's not just Sam, it's the whole community. What is a good
> implementation, is Cyrus better?
Among freeware servers:
Cyrus is an excellent implementation. There are a couple of minor issues in
Cyrus (as I r
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Mark Crispin wrote:
>On Fri, 31 May 2002 20:27:16 +0200 (CEST), Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:
>> >Courier violates IMAP in multiple ways. I long ago gave up any hope of
>> >getting its author to fix these bugs; he has basically said that Courier
>> >deliberately violates IMAP
On Fri, 31 May 2002 20:27:16 +0200 (CEST), Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:
> >Courier violates IMAP in multiple ways. I long ago gave up any hope of
> >getting its author to fix these bugs; he has basically said that Courier
> >deliberately violates IMAP as his protest against the protocol.
> We'll
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Mark Crispin wrote:
>As many people have already said, a UID sequence of max+1:* is equivalent
>to *, the maximum UID. The presumption here is that max==* but the
>client does not know that, which is something that can happen with a UID
>client. In the case
Mark Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Courier violates IMAP in multiple ways.
Could you elaborate?
--Arnt
On Fri, 31 May 2002 09:20:44 -0700, Larry Osterman wrote:
> Actually I'm pretty certain that (I think) pine will generate message
> sets in the form of a:b where b>a. I remember that it surprised me when
> I first saw it, so I quickly changed the server to handle that case.
I'm pretty sure that
As many people have already said, a UID sequence of max+1:* is equivalent to
*, the maximum UID. The presumption here is that max==* but the client does
not know that, which is something that can happen with a UID client.
In the case of a message sequence number, max+1:* is a syntax error
t pine, it was one of the other common MUA's.
At least Outlook Express uses a fetch to MAX_UID+1:* to check for new
messages. As much as I hate to say so, Outlook Express isn't breaking any
point in the RFC AFAICS.
In my first implementation, I assumed nothing about the bounds in a
s.
Larry Osterman
-Original Message-
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 8:36 AM
To: Paul Smith
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: max+1:* fetches
Paul Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Precisely. As far as the RFC says, "1:2" and "
Paul Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Precisely. As far as the RFC says, "1:2" and "2:1" are equivalent.
>
> It doesn't say this.. (as far as I can see). It's open to interpretation
> from reading the RFC.
Exactly. ;)
It says a:b means all the
To: Alexey Melnikov
>> Cc: Paul Smith; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: max+1:* fetches
>>
>>
>> Alexey Melnikov a écrit :
>> >
>> > Paul Smith wrote:
>> >
>> > > At 13:41 31/05/2002 +0200, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:
&g
1, 2002 5:36 AM
> To: Alexey Melnikov
> Cc: Paul Smith; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: max+1:* fetches
>
>
> Alexey Melnikov a écrit :
> >
> > Paul Smith wrote:
> >
> > > At 13:41 31/05/2002 +0200, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:
> > > >Say
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Paul Smith wrote:
> (It doesn't actually seem to explicitly say what '10:20' means either...
> (as far as I can see). It means 'messages 10 to 20 inclusive' (I hope...),
> but I can't see anywhere it says this it wouldn't be impossible for
> someone to interpret it to mean '2
al understanding is probably that the
>> > second sequence number must be larger or equal to the first one, but I
>> > can't find it in the RFC).
>>Precisely. As far as the RFC says, "1:2" and "2:1" are equivalent.
>It doesn't say this.. (
econd sequence number must be larger or equal to the first one, but I
> > can't find it in the RFC).
>
>Precisely. As far as the RFC says, "1:2" and "2:1" are equivalent.
It doesn't say this.. (as far as I can see). It's open to interpretation
from readi
I
> can't find it in the RFC).
Precisely. As far as the RFC says, "1:2" and "2:1" are equivalent.
It's probably best for clients to send only a:b where b > a, and for
servers to handle any a:b.
--Arnt
GaÌl Roualland wrote:
> Alexey Melnikov a écrit :
> >
> > Paul Smith wrote:
> >
> > > At 13:41 31/05/2002 +0200, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:
> > > >Say a mailbox has 1000 messages in it, and the highest UID is 1600. Which
> > > >is the cor
Alexey Melnikov a écrit :
>
> Paul Smith wrote:
>
> > At 13:41 31/05/2002 +0200, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:
> > >Say a mailbox has 1000 messages in it, and the highest UID is 1600. Which
> > >is the correct response?
> > >
> > >
> At 13:41 31/05/2002 +0200, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:
> >Say a mailbox has 1000 messages in it, and the highest UID is 1600. Which
> >is the correct response?
> >
> >1 UID FETCH 1601:* FLAGS
> >1 OK FETCH completed.
> >
> >or
> >
> >
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>Paul Smith wrote:
>> At 13:41 31/05/2002 +0200, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:
>> >Say a mailbox has 1000 messages in it, and the highest UID is 1600. Which
>> >is the correct response?
>> >1 UID FETCH 1601:* FLAGS
&g
Paul Smith wrote:
> At 13:41 31/05/2002 +0200, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:
> >Say a mailbox has 1000 messages in it, and the highest UID is 1600. Which
> >is the correct response?
> >
> >1 UID FETCH 1601:* FLAGS
> >1 OK FETCH completed.
> >
> >or
&g
At 13:41 31/05/2002 +0200, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:
>Say a mailbox has 1000 messages in it, and the highest UID is 1600. Which
>is the correct response?
>
>1 UID FETCH 1601:* FLAGS
>1 OK FETCH completed.
>
>or
>
>1 UID FETCH 1601:* FLAGS
>* 1000 FETCH (UID 1
Hi,
Say a mailbox has 1000 messages in it, and the highest UID is 1600. Which
is the correct response?
1 UID FETCH 1601:* FLAGS
1 OK FETCH completed.
or
1 UID FETCH 1601:* FLAGS
* 1000 FETCH (UID 1600 FLAGS (\Seen))
1 OK FETCH completed.
? Andy
--
Andreas Aardal Hanssen
37 matches
Mail list logo
