Just FYI - I’ve reproduced the exception with a completely fresh install of 4.0.5, against my mailserver (running dovecot for IMAP).
Fresh database etc, no memcached. I’ll raise an entry on Bugzilla shortly. :-) On 24 Jan 2019, at 22:44, Matthew Hall <wa...@soggysoftware.co.uk <mailto:wa...@soggysoftware.co.uk>> wrote: > Hello, I apologise if I’m first-time posting to the wrong place! > > I’ve just upgraded (and due to reasons entirely my fault, I’ve realised I > have no downgrade path… backup fail) from 3.2.6 (I believe it was) to 4.0.5. > > It’s a Debian box, using the “official Debian sogo packages” - I’m now > running on Debian Buster (due for release later this year). > > Everything is working a charm - upgrading the database appears to have worked > perfectly - all except the “/view” URL used by the AJAX UI for retrieving a > “rich” email from a folder… > > Works using “viewsource”, and the headers download properly etc. I’m seeing > an exception thrown in the logs: > > Jan 24 22:41:11 sogod [2864]: <0x0x560efac4c220[NGImap4Client]> TLS started > successfully. > Jan 24 22:41:11 sogod [2864]: 10.0.90.34, 10.0.20.10, 10.0.20.11 "GET > /SOGo/so/matthewhall/Mail/0/folderINBOX/64252/viewsource HTTP/1.1" 200 1584/0 > 0.549 4041 60% 0 > > (worked) > > > Jan 24 22:41:11 sogod [2864]: <0x0x560efac4cae0[NGImap4Client]> TLS started > successfully. > 2019-01-24 22:41:12.503 sogod[2864:2864] EXCEPTION: <NSException: > 0x560efb64a450> NAME:NSInvalidArgumentException > REASON:[NSString+stringWithString:]: NULL string INFO:(null) > Jan 24 22:41:12 sogod [2864]: 10.0.90.34, 10.0.20.10, 10.0.20.11 "GET > /SOGo/so/matthewhall/Mail/0/folderINBOX/64252/view HTTP/1.1" 501 0/0 0.550 - > - 0 > > (failed) > > (Note it’s a “GET” request and not a “POST” because I’m reproducing it > manually, not via the AJAX UI in this example.) > > I’ve tried with all the debugging enabled in sogo.conf and I don’t see > anything unusual: IMAP works perfectly, then sogod throws the exception above. > > Any ideas? I’ve exhausted all my own ideas - and I can’t see that it’s a > known bug. > I’ve by-hand confirmed the database structure looks correct for a 4.0.5, but > I may have overlooked something. I briefly tried it against a fresh database > too, and that behaved the same (again, unless I was overlooking something > silly). > > Thanks in advance! > - Matt > > -- users@sogo.nu https://inverse.ca/sogo/lists
