dovecot - Jul 2005 - Re: Bug#319504: Bug in 0.99.14 mbox handling - mail UIDs are renumbered without bumping UIDVALIDITY

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, David McBride wrote:
> Package: dovecot-imapd
> Version: 0.99.14-1
> Severity: important
>
> Hi,
>
> I think I've identified a bug in Dovecot 0.99.14 as packaged and
> distributed by Debian Sarge.  I believe the bug lies in the original
> Dovecot source, not with any modifications made by Debian.
>
> Specifically, this bug deals with Dovecot's handling of message unique
> identifiers (UIDs) for IMAP clients when using the mbox mailbox storage
> format.
>
David, can you check if the problem persists with 0.99.20050712-1 which is 
in sid?  This is actually the 1.0stable branch of dovecot and has many 
fixes not included in 0.99.x

The package should work correctly on sarge (a proper sarge backport is 
forthcoming) but you will also need libpq4 from sid and you'll need to 
make sure dovecot-common is also upgraded to 0.99.20050712-1 also.

-- 
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at debian.org>
La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/

On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 12:48 -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> > Specifically, this bug deals with Dovecot's handling of message
unique
> > identifiers (UIDs) for IMAP clients when using the mbox mailbox
storage
> > format.
> David, can you check if the problem persists with 0.99.20050712-1 which is 
> in sid?  This is actually the 1.0stable branch of dovecot and has many 
> fixes not included in 0.99.x
> 
> The package should work correctly on sarge (a proper sarge backport is 
> forthcoming) but you will also need libpq4 from sid and you'll need to 
> make sure dovecot-common is also upgraded to 0.99.20050712-1 also.
Hi,

The server on which I am having this bug is currently running in
production, so I have tested the sid package on a seperate sid machine
that I already have running.  This version of Dovecot did _not_ exhibit
the UID-renumbering bug.

It was necessary to create a new dovecot.conf file, but this was
straightforward as the changes between the two versions were minor.

Obviously this isn't a perfect test as something ephermeral on the
original server could concievably be triggering this problem -- however,
I think that is unlikely.

Cheers,
David
-- 
David McBride <dwm at tastycake.net>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL:
<http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20050725/7fdfb034/attachment-0001.bin>