Re: cyrus force pop3 clients to leave messages on server

2006-07-30 Thread Martin Schiøtz
On 7/30/06, Daniel Eckl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: That's a good idea. But this may have an unwanted side effect: A pop3 client which is not configured to leave messages on server might ignore the possibility that messages on the server might be seen already. If the client doesn't compare fetch

Re: cyrus force pop3 clients to leave messages on server

2006-07-30 Thread Martin Schiøtz
On 7/30/06, former03 | Baltasar Cevc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If I'm not mistaken that's impossible due to the POP3 protocol restrictions, the messages are removed using the DELE command, and there's some command to get the numers of the messages and UUIDs. If this assumption is right, the only

Re: cyrus force pop3 clients to leave messages on server

2006-07-30 Thread Daniel Eckl
That's a good idea. But this may have an unwanted side effect: A pop3 client which is not configured to leave messages on server might ignore the possibility that messages on the server might be seen already. If the client doesn't compare fetched and unfetched mails with the UIDL command, it migh

Re: cyrus force pop3 clients to leave messages on server

2006-07-30 Thread former03 | Baltasar Cevc
If I'm not mistaken that's impossible due to the POP3 protocol restrictions, the messages are removed using the DELE command, and there's some command to get the numers of the messages and UUIDs. If this assumption is right, the only possibilities would be to prevent deletion using ACL (which wo

cyrus force pop3 clients to leave messages on server

2006-07-30 Thread Martin Schiøtz
Hi Is it possible with cyrus to force pop3 clients always to 'leave messages on server' no matter what the is configured on the pop3 client? Best regards, Martin Cyrus Home Page: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus Cyrus Wiki/FAQ: http://cyruswiki.andrew.cmu.edu List Archives/Info: http://asg.web.

Re: mailbox listed twice

2006-07-30 Thread Jan Schneider
Zitat von Jan Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Does anybody know if the issue below has been fixed with 2.2.13? Looks like it doesn't. I really don't want to upgrade to 2.3.x at this point only to find out that it still hasn't been fixed there either. Does anybody have more information wheth