While testing an upgrade from Dovecot 1.2.9 (on Ubuntu 10.04 LTS) to
2.0.19 (12.04 LTS) I encountered the following change in behaviour:
In both setups, mail_location is defined as follows:
mail_location = maildir:~/domains/%d/%n/.Maildir:LAYOUT=fs
No other mail_location-related settings are set in the config.
On 1.2.9 this leads to new mail being delivered to this example directory:
/home/username/domains/example-domain.ext/webmaster/.Maildir/INBOX/new/
On 2.0.19 the exact same mail_location is set, but new mail is now
delivered to:
/home/username/domains/example-domain.ext/webmaster/.Maildir/new/
Notice the missing /INBOX/ in the path on 2.0.19.
I found no mention of this change on
http://wiki2.dovecot.org/Upgrading/2.0 which first lead me to suspect
this was a bug in 2.0.19.
However, while browsing the 2.0-wiki I found a page which sheds some
light on the behaviour that is to be expected from Dovecot 2.0.x. Quote
from http://wiki2.dovecot.org/MailLocation/Maildir#Directory_layout >
"Mailbox directory name":
"Without DIRNAME, INBOX will be stored at ~/Maildir/{new,cur,tmp}/, but
when DIRNAME is specified, we get an extra path component INBOX/
immediately prior to the DIRNAME value, so in the example above INBOX
would be stored at ~/Maildir/INBOX/mAildir/{new,cur,tmp}/."
I then changed mail_location to have an empty DIRNAME, like:
mail_location = maildir:~/domains/%d/%n/.Maildir:LAYOUT=fs:DIRNAME
It appears this fixes the problem for new mail arriving (haven't tested
other folders yet).
Questions:
1. Is this a deliberate change in behaviour between the two versions? If
so, may I suggest adding this change to the Upgrading to 2.0 wiki page,
because I was unable to find the relevant info quickly.
If not, is this a misconfiguration on my side, or a (known) bug in one
of the two versions?
2. Is the DIRNAME=(empty) a good solution, or is it unusual/hacky to
leave DIRNAME empty? Any particular problems I may expect using this
configuration?
Thanks in advance for your help.
--
Kind regards,
Martijn
