similar to: mbox problems

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 100000 matches similar to: "mbox problems"

2002 Aug 29
0
v0.97 released
This is a major cleanup release. My near future goal is to make it impossible to crash Dovecot no matter what you did. This release also adds support for files larger than 2GB with Linux and Solaris. Also mbox support seems to work quite well now, except EXPUNGE and STORE are still not implemented. The "impossible to crash" should already be quite true, at least when it comes to index
2003 Sep 09
1
Problem with mbox files.
I have trouble to get my INBOX-mbox to work properly. I have set the default_mail_env, to this.. "default_mail_env = mbox:~/mail/:INBOX=/var/mail/%u" Since my users are using thier home-dirs to store folders and old mails, and recieving them in /var/mail/username. But when logging in i get this.. Sep 9 12:25:23 angelica imap-login: Login: username [217.151.192.103] Sep 9
2007 Apr 06
2
mbox sync/lock issue, rc28 and later
Help! I just noticed this error this morning, we have been getting a lot of these in rc28 and rc29, not in rc27 or before: Apr 6 07:22:52 karst dovecot: [ID 107833 mail.error] IMAP(jaearick): mbox file /var/mail/j/jaearick was modified while we were syncing, check your locking settings Pine coughed up an internal error, no core dump, and dovecot basically doubled the size of my mailbox by
2016 Feb 21
3
Streaming MOVE commands
Hello Timo, Timo Sirainen <tss at iki.fi> writes: > Thanks, looks like this was broken with Maildir and mbox formats. It > also caused expunges in some other situations to be lost. Fixed: > > https://github.com/dovecot/core/commit/950a6e61d6c2dac961ce031bdd8b2895bc32b827 Thanks a lot for the fix, testing it now! Is this patch suitable of being backported to 2.2.13? (Debian
2003 Nov 10
1
0.99.10.1 released
Since release candidate I added fix for CRLF + partial BODY[] fetching. I hope everything works :) I've been running it with mbox for a while and it seems to work fine. v0.99.10.1 2003-11-10 Timo Sirainen <tss at iki.fi> * mbox: \Draft and \Deleted flags used opposite flag chars in X-Status header. We were incompatible with other mbox accessing software. WARNING: Upgrading
2007 Mar 10
4
pre-1.0.rc27: Index and mbox fixes
I've been doing some stress testing in the last few days and fixing all the errors I saw. I'm hoping that I've finally really fixed all the index/mbox problems. So, again I think the only thing left for v1.0 is the documentation. Please test this nightly snapshot before I'll release rc27 tomorrow: http://dovecot.org/nightly/dovecot-latest.tar.gz If you've seen any of the
2003 May 13
0
Re: Design thought - Retention of reworked mbox files
It's primarily for debugging, and I don't see it being used in a high volume environment. What triggered the thought is that I suspect I may have lost the bodies of a couple of messages during an expunge, but because I don't have the previous state of the mbox file, I have no way of verifying my concern, and certainly no way to try and recreate it. And yes, I'm using mbox files,
2017 Apr 07
2
[Dovecot-news] v2.2.29.rc1 released
On Apr 7, 2017, at 3:01 AM, Aki Tuomi <aki.tuomi at dovecot.fi> wrote: >> On April 7, 2017 at 9:38 AM Timo Sirainen <tss at iki.fi> wrote: >> On 7 Apr 2017, at 2.25, Daniel J. Luke <dluke at geeklair.net> wrote: >>> >>> On Apr 6, 2017, at 1:33 PM, Timo Sirainen <tss at iki.fi> wrote: >>>> Planning to release v2.2.29 on Monday.
2006 Jan 24
1
Fwd: Weird problem opening mbox in beta1/2
Hmm, this is peculiar! This mailbox has been unchanged on my test server since September. I've been using it to test each new version of Dovecot just after I've compiled it. When beta1 was released, I opened this mbox with no problems. However, when I upgraded to beta2, I got "file size unexpectedly shrinked in mbox file /export/mail/a/24/vis99003/INBOX (16895967 vs 16899267)".
2008 Jun 03
2
mbox: extra linefeed after Content-Length header in 1.1.rc8
mbox messages gets header corruption caused by an extra linefeed after Content-Length Users sees their mails in Sent mbox folder without the from and to fields, without attachments and with the date of 1/1/1970 Diego. --- Here is an anonymized header: >From xxxxxxxx at xxxxxx.xxxxxx.xxxxx.xx.xx Tue Jun 03 09:14:33 2008 Message-ID: <xxxxxxxx.xxxxxxx at xxxxxx.xxxxx.xx.xx> X-UID: 3913
2017 Apr 07
3
[Dovecot-news] v2.2.29.rc1 released
On Apr 7, 2017, at 11:17 AM, Aki Tuomi <aki.tuomi at dovecot.fi> wrote: >> On April 7, 2017 at 6:00 PM "Daniel J. Luke" <dluke at geeklair.net> wrote: >> On Apr 7, 2017, at 3:01 AM, Aki Tuomi <aki.tuomi at dovecot.fi> wrote: >>>> On April 7, 2017 at 9:38 AM Timo Sirainen <tss at iki.fi> wrote: >>>> On 7 Apr 2017, at 2.25, Daniel
2009 Jun 08
2
Mailbox isn't a valid mbox file
Getting "Mailbox isn't a valid mbox file" on 1.2rc2 after transferring mail from an ancient 0.99.13 system. The first line of the file looks ok. Curiously, it's one of my archival folders of this list. Here's the first header from the top of the file: >From tss at iki.fi Sat May 1 21:48:17 2004 From: tss at iki.fi (Timo Sirainen) Date: Sat May 1 21:54:18 2004
2013 Jun 24
1
v2.2.4 released
http://dovecot.org/releases/2.2/dovecot-2.2.4.tar.gz http://dovecot.org/releases/2.2/dovecot-2.2.4.tar.gz.sig OK, this should be a pretty good and stable version. + doveadm: Added "flags" command to modify message flags. + doveadm: Added "deduplicate" command to expunge message duplicates. + dsync: Show the state in process title with
2013 Jun 24
1
v2.2.4 released
http://dovecot.org/releases/2.2/dovecot-2.2.4.tar.gz http://dovecot.org/releases/2.2/dovecot-2.2.4.tar.gz.sig OK, this should be a pretty good and stable version. + doveadm: Added "flags" command to modify message flags. + doveadm: Added "deduplicate" command to expunge message duplicates. + dsync: Show the state in process title with
2010 Jan 29
1
mdbox, dsync
I finally migrated my mails from mbox format to mdbox format using dsync: 1. Stop dovecot, wait a few seconds for processes to die 2. dsync convert mdbox:~/mdbox 3. Change mail_location to mdbox:~/mdbox 4. Check that no new mails arrived during conversion (alternatively I could have just run dsync again, but I decided not to test my luck) 5. Start dovecot After fixing a pretty bad bug in dsync
2013 Jun 19
2
Mbox corruption - Inbox beginning with 'FFrom' or 'FrFrom'
Hello, we're having some problems with our dovecot setup. I've seen similar problems in the mailing list some years ago but alas wasn't able to find a solution. Our setup is as follows : An MX farm (postfix) sends mails via LMTP to a director farm (dovecot 2.1.12) which proxies pop3/imap/lmtp traffic to a dovecot farm (dovecot 2.1.16). All mailboxes and indexes are on NFS and all
2011 Oct 10
1
Convert-tool maildir > mbox
Timo, Is seems that this commit broke convertion from Maildir to Mbox using dovecot 1.2 convert-tool binary : 2009-07-09 Timo Sirainen <tss at iki.fi> * src/plugins/convert/convert-storage.c: convert plugin: Fixed changing hierarchy separators in mailbox names when alt_hierarchy_char isn't set. [a9f719f9a509] <HEAD> Since, I get the
2006 Jun 08
8
Trash expire plugin
Dovecot will soon have a plugin which allows running a nightly cronjob to expunge mails from configured mailboxes which have been in there for a configurable amount of time. For example the configuration could be: plugin { # Trash 7d, Spam 30d expire = Trash 7 Spam 30 } It also supports using Dovecot's lib-dict to keep track of the mailboxes and their oldest mail's timestamp, so that
2012 Oct 29
3
mbox vs. maildir storage block waste
Hi. I recently mentioned in several posts, that I'd tended to use mbox rather than maildir, because you don't loose so much space (due to always allocating full blocks per maildir file and thus per mail). I made some tests of my archive, which consists of some 3,4 million mails at a total of 42GB). Most of these mails are probably normal sized, but there are also some with bigger
2017 Apr 07
0
[Dovecot-news] v2.2.29.rc1 released
> On April 7, 2017 at 6:00 PM "Daniel J. Luke" <dluke at geeklair.net> wrote: > > > On Apr 7, 2017, at 3:01 AM, Aki Tuomi <aki.tuomi at dovecot.fi> wrote: > >> On April 7, 2017 at 9:38 AM Timo Sirainen <tss at iki.fi> wrote: > >> On 7 Apr 2017, at 2.25, Daniel J. Luke <dluke at geeklair.net> wrote: > >>> >