Hi Is it legal/sensible to use the following in the conf file # default namespace namespace private { separator = / prefix inbox = yes } # for backwards compatibility: namespace private { separator = . prefix = INBOX. inbox = yes hidden = yes } The goal would be to migrate away from an Courier server, whilst still supporting clients using their old settings, but going forward they can use the new settings? In particular I always noticed that OE would not set the namespace automatically, so being able to leave it blank would be an advantage (fewer config issues for customers) Grateful if someone could confirm this works ok? Compatibility issues with Thunderbird/OE/Outlook 2003+ in particular? Cheers Ed W
On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 15:20 +0100, Ed W wrote:> Hi > > Is it legal/sensible to use the following in the conf file > > # default namespace > namespace private { > separator = / > prefix > inbox = yes > } > > # for backwards compatibility: > namespace private { > separator = . > prefix = INBOX. > inbox = yes > hidden = yes > }Because the second one is hidden, it's legal. But I don't know if there are compatibility problems with clients. If there are, they most likely go away by using the same separator with both. -------------- 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/20070909/48ccf184/attachment-0002.bin>
Timo Sirainen wrote:> On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 15:20 +0100, Ed W wrote: > >> Hi >> >> Is it legal/sensible to use the following in the conf file >> >> # default namespace >> namespace private { >> separator = / >> prefix >> inbox = yes >> } >> >> # for backwards compatibility: >> namespace private { >> separator = . >> prefix = INBOX. >> inbox = yes >> hidden = yes >> } >> > > Because the second one is hidden, it's legal. But I don't know if there > are compatibility problems with clients. If there are, they most likely > go away by using the same separator with both. >Thanks for the confirmation Actually are there any advantages in changing separator at all...? I only wanted to get closer to the "default" config going forward, but perhaps it's a pointless goal? Anyone have any opinions on bugs/features/limitations in changing the separator and namespace to the dovecot default? Cheers Ed W