Mailing List Archive

ANNOUNCE: DBMail 2.2.2 released
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


DBMail 2.2.2 released.

We're happy to announce the availability of DBMail 2.2.2.

This is a bugfix maintenance release in the current stable
production series.

For more information about the changes included in this version please
check the news item at

http://www.dbmail.org/index.php?page=news&id=36

kind regards,

- --
________________________________________________________________
Paul Stevens paul at nfg.nl
NET FACILITIES GROUP GPG/PGP: 1024D/11F8CD31
The Netherlands________________________________http://www.nfg.nl
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFwG/m8iITvBH4zTERAkG9AJ48LE3MIz2eNkqjzz3y1LgQkSXe2QCg4gNp
ndhXsQBaRpzmyjhqsM6Lpu8=
=Ouqw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
DBmail@dbmail.org
https://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
Re: ANNOUNCE: DBMail 2.2.2 released [ In reply to ]
Great!

I'm happy for you guys!!

will now svn 2.3x will be open?


Jorge


----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul J Stevens" <paul@nfg.nl>
To: "DBMail mailinglist" <dbmail@dbmail.org>
Cc: "DBMAIL Developers Mailinglist" <dbmail-dev@dbmail.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 10:31 AM
Subject: [Dbmail] ANNOUNCE: DBMail 2.2.2 released


> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> DBMail 2.2.2 released.
>
> We're happy to announce the availability of DBMail 2.2.2.
>
> This is a bugfix maintenance release in the current stable
> production series.
>
> For more information about the changes included in this version please
> check the news item at
>
> http://www.dbmail.org/index.php?page=news&id=36
>
> kind regards,
>
> - --
> ________________________________________________________________
> Paul Stevens paul at nfg.nl
> NET FACILITIES GROUP GPG/PGP: 1024D/11F8CD31
> The Netherlands________________________________http://www.nfg.nl
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFFwG/m8iITvBH4zTERAkG9AJ48LE3MIz2eNkqjzz3y1LgQkSXe2QCg4gNp
> ndhXsQBaRpzmyjhqsM6Lpu8=
> =Ouqw
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> DBmail mailing list
> DBmail@dbmail.org
> https://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
>
_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
DBmail@dbmail.org
https://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
Re: ANNOUNCE: DBMail 2.2.2 released [ In reply to ]
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 10:46 +0000, Jorge Bastos wrote:
> Great!
>
> I'm happy for you guys!!
>
> will now svn 2.3x will be open?

Please don't go anywhere near SVN trunk; it actually reflects a dev
state from late DBMail 2.1... before we branched and put a lot of work
into code cleanup and stability on dbmail_2_2_branch.

Looking at the release history of DBMail, it's been about two years
between major stable releases. Expect that to be the 2.4 timeframe, too.

Aaron

_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
DBmail@dbmail.org
https://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
Re: ANNOUNCE: DBMail 2.2.2 released [ In reply to ]
"Aaron Stone" <aaron@serendipity.cx> schrieb:
> On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 10:46 +0000, Jorge Bastos wrote:
>> Great!
>>
>> I'm happy for you guys!!
>>
>> will now svn 2.3x will be open?
>
> Please don't go anywhere near SVN trunk; it actually reflects a dev
> state from late DBMail 2.1... before we branched and put a lot of work
> into code cleanup and stability on dbmail_2_2_branch.
>
> Looking at the release history of DBMail, it's been about two years
> between major stable releases. Expect that to be the 2.4 timeframe, too.

Hopefully it will not take about 2 years until the next major release.
That's too long. Please try to keep small steps and try to release more
often.

That's my point of view as maintainer of another opensource project.


--
Lars Kneschke
Metaways Infosystems GmbH
Pickhuben 4
20457
Hamburg
Germany

eGroupWare Training & Support ==>
http://www.egroupware-support.net

E-Mail:
mailto:l.kneschke@metaways.de
Web: http://www.metaways.de
Tel: +49 (0)40
317031-21
Fax: +49 (0)40 317031-81
Mobile: +49 (0)175 9304324


_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
DBmail@dbmail.org
https://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
Re: ANNOUNCE: DBMail 2.2.2 released [ In reply to ]
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 18:42 +0100, Lars Kneschke wrote:
> "Aaron Stone" <aaron@serendipity.cx> schrieb:
>
> > Looking at the release history of DBMail, it's been about two years
> > between major stable releases. Expect that to be the 2.4 timeframe, too.
>
> Hopefully it will not take about 2 years until the next major release.
> That's too long. Please try to keep small steps and try to release more
> often.
>
> That's my point of view as maintainer of another opensource project.

The next big project is multithreading the daemons. Even if that's the
only change that is made, I think it will take a while to get right. Of
course I'm open to different ideas, and I'm researching threading
frameworks that we can leverage to reduce our development time. Anyways,
getting into those details we should move onto the dbmail-dev list.

My main point off this thread is that anybody who uses SVN trunk is
asking for serious trouble at this time.

Aaron

_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
DBmail@dbmail.org
https://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
Re: ANNOUNCE: DBMail 2.2.2 released [ In reply to ]
Aaron Stone wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 10:46 +0000, Jorge Bastos wrote:
>> Great!
>>
>> I'm happy for you guys!!
>>
>> will now svn 2.3x will be open?
>
> Please don't go anywhere near SVN trunk; it actually reflects a dev
> state from late DBMail 2.1... before we branched and put a lot of work
> into code cleanup and stability on dbmail_2_2_branch.

Well actually, I've merged branch_2_2 into trunk a couple of times since
2.2.0.



--
________________________________________________________________
Paul Stevens paul at nfg.nl
NET FACILITIES GROUP GPG/PGP: 1024D/11F8CD31
The Netherlands________________________________http://www.nfg.nl
_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
DBmail@dbmail.org
https://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
Re: ANNOUNCE: DBMail 2.2.2 released [ In reply to ]
Aaron Stone wrote:
> The next big project is multithreading the daemons. Even if that's the
> only change that is made, I think it will take a while to get right. Of
> course I'm open to different ideas, and I'm researching threading
> frameworks that we can leverage to reduce our development time. Anyways,
> getting into those details we should move onto the dbmail-dev list.


May I ask why this is important? Threads aren't the end-all-be-all that
lots people think they are. I believe a multi-process system can be
every bit as fast as a threaded server, and it's a lot less complicated.
_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
DBmail@dbmail.org
https://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
Re: ANNOUNCE: DBMail 2.2.2 released [ In reply to ]
Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
> Aaron Stone wrote:
>> The next big project is multithreading the daemons. Even if that's the
>> only change that is made, I think it will take a while to get right. Of
>> course I'm open to different ideas, and I'm researching threading
>> frameworks that we can leverage to reduce our development time. Anyways,
>> getting into those details we should move onto the dbmail-dev list.
>
>
> May I ask why this is important? Threads aren't the end-all-be-all that
> lots people think they are. I believe a multi-process system can be
> every bit as fast as a threaded server, and it's a lot less complicated.

Using threading is not a goal in itself, but a means.

One of the goals for 2.3+ is adding new imap capabilities like NOTIFY
that require a lot of IPC between running imapd processes. Using threads
will make that quite straightforward.

Another goal is scaling up the number of concurrent connected clients
without depleting the database connections. Using connection pools is a
best practice there, and even though that could be done in a
multi-process architecture, this is generally done using threads.

So yes, imo also there's a very solid case for threads in dbmail. But
like Aaron says, it will take some time to do this right. Neither I nor
Aaron (afaik) have any experience with threads in C so we'll have to
learn how to do it as we go along :-)

--
________________________________________________________________
Paul Stevens paul at nfg.nl
NET FACILITIES GROUP GPG/PGP: 1024D/11F8CD31
The Netherlands________________________________http://www.nfg.nl
_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
DBmail@dbmail.org
https://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
Re: ANNOUNCE: DBMail 2.2.2 released [ In reply to ]
It may be worth looking at something like APR (http://apr.apache.org/)
for dealing with things like threads and shared memory on disparate
platforms. No doubt this would bloat dbmail somewhat, but it's always
nice to not have to do it all yourself, as we've seen with gmime.

Paul J Stevens wrote:
> Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
>> Aaron Stone wrote:
>>> The next big project is multithreading the daemons. Even if that's the
>>> only change that is made, I think it will take a while to get right. Of
>>> course I'm open to different ideas, and I'm researching threading
>>> frameworks that we can leverage to reduce our development time. Anyways,
>>> getting into those details we should move onto the dbmail-dev list.
>>
>> May I ask why this is important? Threads aren't the end-all-be-all that
>> lots people think they are. I believe a multi-process system can be
>> every bit as fast as a threaded server, and it's a lot less complicated.
>
> Using threading is not a goal in itself, but a means.
>
> One of the goals for 2.3+ is adding new imap capabilities like NOTIFY
> that require a lot of IPC between running imapd processes. Using threads
> will make that quite straightforward.
>
> Another goal is scaling up the number of concurrent connected clients
> without depleting the database connections. Using connection pools is a
> best practice there, and even though that could be done in a
> multi-process architecture, this is generally done using threads.
>
> So yes, imo also there's a very solid case for threads in dbmail. But
> like Aaron says, it will take some time to do this right. Neither I nor
> Aaron (afaik) have any experience with threads in C so we'll have to
> learn how to do it as we go along :-)
>
_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
DBmail@dbmail.org
https://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
Re: ANNOUNCE: DBMail 2.2.2 released [ In reply to ]
Besides dbmail specific goals,

threading is better suited for memory management and limitation.

threading is more controllable during a DoS attack.

threading if done right, will provide better scaling abilities (see
roxen versus apache).

threading will provide us eventually with a more sleak and clean design,
because it does not allow for the apache programming model in the sense of:
"We have this child, it leaks memory so lets kill it after x connects en
start a new one."

Kind regards,

Marc
_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
DBmail@dbmail.org
https://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
Re: ANNOUNCE: DBMail 2.2.2 released [ In reply to ]
Marc Dirix wrote:
> threading is better suited for memory management and limitation.

How's that exactly? Using unix fork() which is copy on write, forking
many processes tends to be very memory efficient.

> threading is more controllable during a DoS attack.

I've never heard this before, please expound.

> threading if done right, will provide better scaling abilities (see
> roxen versus apache).

I don't know much about roxen, but I think lots of things will scale
better than Apache since Apache by design is a kitchen sink type program.

> threading will provide us eventually with a more sleak and clean design,
> because it does not allow for the apache programming model in the sense of:
> "We have this child, it leaks memory so lets kill it after x connects en
> start a new one."

This sounds like a threads are better because they are argument. The
benifit of being able to kill off a process with memory leaks is that
the server still runs, if you have the same memory leak in a treaded
app, you have to restart the whole server.

I'm not against threading, I'm just concerned that we are going to add a
ton of complexity for very little gain.
_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
DBmail@dbmail.org
https://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
Re: ANNOUNCE: DBMail 2.2.2 released [ In reply to ]
Paul J Stevens wrote:
> Using threading is not a goal in itself, but a means.
>
> One of the goals for 2.3+ is adding new imap capabilities like NOTIFY
> that require a lot of IPC between running imapd processes. Using threads
> will make that quite straightforward.

OK, though IPC is possible in a multi-process model, but I agree,
communication is probably the one place where a threaded system is more
simple than multi-process.

> Another goal is scaling up the number of concurrent connected clients
> without depleting the database connections. Using connection pools is a
> best practice there, and even though that could be done in a
> multi-process architecture, this is generally done using threads.

I don't see how this makes things better, what it sounds like you are
suggesting is that DBMail will become in addition to an IMAP server, a
database connection pooling engine. There are tools out there that do
this already.

> So yes, imo also there's a very solid case for threads in dbmail. But
> like Aaron says, it will take some time to do this right. Neither I nor
> Aaron (afaik) have any experience with threads in C so we'll have to
> learn how to do it as we go along :-)

This sounds scary to me. Obviously it's not my project and I'm not the
one coding, I'm just worried as an admin that depends on DBMail that we
are going to open up a large can of worms for dubious gain.

_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
DBmail@dbmail.org
https://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
Re: ANNOUNCE: DBMail 2.2.2 released [ In reply to ]
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 17:13 -0500, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
> Paul J Stevens wrote:

> > Another goal is scaling up the number of concurrent connected clients
> > without depleting the database connections. Using connection pools is a
> > best practice there, and even though that could be done in a
> > multi-process architecture, this is generally done using threads.
>
> I don't see how this makes things better, what it sounds like you are
> suggesting is that DBMail will become in addition to an IMAP server, a
> database connection pooling engine. There are tools out there that do
> this already.

http://monkey.org/~provos/libevent/

Memcache has incredible performance based on this library, with all O(1)
operations behind it. I would like to use a similar architecture for
handling incoming commands, then farming out the command responses to
threads. Parsing the first 10 - 20 bytes of a command should allow us to
whittle down to a single function that responds to that command. The
function will be called in its own thread and the main thread will go on
to process the next 10 - 20 incoming bytes on another connection.

This is the reactor/proactor pattern (they are subtly different, and we
might want to blend them a little bit) and after lots of reading, its
what I think we should be doing next.

Also, if each thread only asks for a database handle if it needs one, we
should be able to economize on those connections. Further, if we
leverage memcache, certain operations should become extremely fast. For
example, if each time a message is delivered, dbmail-lmtpd or
dbmail-smtp updates the user's mailbox status in memcache, the next time
they poll (or, better yet, IDLE) for status updates, no database handle
will be needed and the information will come directly from memory.

Aaron

_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
DBmail@dbmail.org
https://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
Re: ANNOUNCE: DBMail 2.2.2 released [ In reply to ]
Aaron Stone wrote:
> http://monkey.org/~provos/libevent/
>
> Memcache has incredible performance based on this library, with all O(1)
> operations behind it. I would like to use a similar architecture for
> handling incoming commands, then farming out the command responses to
> threads. Parsing the first 10 - 20 bytes of a command should allow us to
> whittle down to a single function that responds to that command. The
> function will be called in its own thread and the main thread will go on
> to process the next 10 - 20 incoming bytes on another connection.

This all sounds interesting, however I should point out that from a
quick read of the page you reference above, libevent doesn't require
threads.

As for the design, are you planning on making memcached a requirement
for DBMail? Or just an optional way to make things faster if need be?

> Also, if each thread only asks for a database handle if it needs one, we
> should be able to economize on those connections. Further, if we
> leverage memcache, certain operations should become extremely fast. For
> example, if each time a message is delivered, dbmail-lmtpd or
> dbmail-smtp updates the user's mailbox status in memcache, the next time
> they poll (or, better yet, IDLE) for status updates, no database handle
> will be needed and the information will come directly from memory.

The memcached stuff sounds very interesting, and like a very good idea
to help DBMail scale up, but again, this isn't a reason for threading,
this looks like it will work fine in a multi-process environment, and it
looks straightforward enough that we can probably gain a lot without
re-engineering most of DBMail.



_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
DBmail@dbmail.org
https://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
Re: ANNOUNCE: DBMail 2.2.2 released [ In reply to ]
Bottom line, if you want a thousand open connections on a single mail
server with current DBMail, you're going to need a thousand processes
and a thousand database handles. This don't scale.

I really would prefer to keep most of this discussion on the dbmail-dev
list, for the sake of the sanity of those who are on the dbmail list for
setup and configuration help and not for core architectural issues!

Aaron

On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 22:16 -0500, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:

> This all sounds interesting, however I should point out that from a
> quick read of the page you reference above, libevent doesn't require
> threads.
[etc, snip]

_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
DBmail@dbmail.org
https://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
Re: ANNOUNCE: DBMail 2.2.2 released [ In reply to ]
On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 05:08:18PM -0500, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
> Marc Dirix wrote:
> >threading is better suited for memory management and limitation.
>
> How's that exactly? Using unix fork() which is copy on write, forking
> many processes tends to be very memory efficient.

Processes tend to do lot's of memory writes, certainly in an use environment.
I meant here that a seperate thread can be instituted to do garbage
collection of used memory.


>
> >threading is more controllable during a DoS attack.
>
> I've never heard this before, please expound.

When using a monolithic threading model, the socket is only opened to
the main thread. This main thread will create handler threads if someone
sends data to the socket. In this model all new connection are handled
sequentially, however the return values can be asynchron from each
thread.
The main thread can easily manage both traffic shaping/limiting and
drop multiple connects from the same client.

This agains a multi-process model where there are x default handlers
trying to beat eachother to the socket when a client connects. There is
no control whatsoever about the socket.

There are thread library's specially designed for being used in a
service environment.
>
> >threading if done right, will provide better scaling abilities (see
> >roxen versus apache).
>
> I don't know much about roxen, but I think lots of things will scale
> better than Apache since Apache by design is a kitchen sink type program.
>

That is actually the other way around. Apache is a webserver. If
scripting or whatever is needed one has to look for external compilers
like php or perl. However Roxen is a webapplication server, it has a
internal (RXML) parser which can do just about everything you need for
dynamic pages. (And also if needed interface to php/perl).

The problem with apache is in the fact that to be able to handle N
connects it has to create N childs which eventually will limit to a
maximum. This doesn't scale well. A model where only one socket exists
and connections are handled sequential will scale very well until system limits
that is.


> >threading will provide us eventually with a more sleak and clean design,
> >because it does not allow for the apache programming model in the sense of:
> >"We have this child, it leaks memory so lets kill it after x connects en
> >start a new one."
>
> This sounds like a threads are better because they are argument. The
> benifit of being able to kill off a process with memory leaks is that
> the server still runs, if you have the same memory leak in a treaded
> app, you have to restart the whole server.
>

That's the sloppy programmers kind of view. "We know we leak, but
instead of fixing it we will kill our children".

> I'm not against threading, I'm just concerned that we are going to add a
> ton of complexity for very little gain.

That is true, it will take a steep programming curve to do right.
And sure it will take a long time before dbmail is back to the current
level, however now is the time to make such a decission not after
putting another year of effort into 2.3. The next chance would only be
after 2.4 release.

Marc
_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
DBmail@dbmail.org
https://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
Re: ANNOUNCE: DBMail 2.2.2 released [ In reply to ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

good news! way to go, guys
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFwbhH4DJ/LCkjclMRAhsFAJ41GO8HLPusbIj7j/ACrP4aTB47AgCfbXG3
OuKRo/2kwLoGk4o7S2zz5Go=
=mgap
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
DBmail@dbmail.org
https://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
Re: ANNOUNCE: DBMail 2.2.2 released [ In reply to ]
On Donnerstag, 1. Februar 2007 05:24 Aaron Stone wrote:
> I really would prefer to keep most of this discussion on the
> dbmail-dev list, for the sake of the sanity of those who are on the
> dbmail list for setup and configuration help and not for core
> architectural issues!

A bit of general discussion on this topic is OK, as it's not for very
tech details but more for design.

As for threads: they are faster, nicer, scale better, but require more
advanced programmers than for processes, as synchronisation of the
threads is more complex. But I believe only the devs can decide how
they do something, we "stupid users" are just allowed to say "hey, I
want more performance and feature x". It's nice that they do this for
us already.

I just hope that switching to threads does not bind such a lot of
manpower that other features do not enhance. I don't know if it's
possible that multiple clients connect from different PCs via IMAP to
the same account, as cyrus can do. If it wouldn't, I'd see this as a
much more urgent feature than threads - for example.

mfg zmi
--
// Michael Monnerie, Ing.BSc ----- http://it-management.at
// Tel: 0676/846 914 666 .network.your.ideas.
// PGP Key: "curl -s http://zmi.at/zmi4.asc | gpg --import"
// Fingerprint: EA39 8918 EDFF 0A68 ACFB 11B7 BA2D 060F 1C6F E6B0
// Keyserver: www.keyserver.net Key-ID: 1C6FE6B0
Re: ANNOUNCE: DBMail 2.2.2 released [ In reply to ]
Michael Monnerie wrote:
> I just hope that switching to threads does not bind such a lot of
> manpower that other features do not enhance. I don't know if it's
> possible that multiple clients connect from different PCs via IMAP to
> the same account, as cyrus can do.

We've been doing this since dbmail 1.1.x

Just letting you know,
Alex
_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
DBmail@dbmail.org
https://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
Re: ANNOUNCE: DBMail 2.2.2 released [ In reply to ]
On Donnerstag, 1. Februar 2007 11:37 Aleksander wrote:
> We've been doing this since dbmail 1.1.x

That's what I hoped and expected, thanks :-)

mfg zmi
--
// Michael Monnerie, Ing.BSc ----- http://it-management.at
// Tel: 0676/846 914 666 .network.your.ideas.
// PGP Key: "curl -s http://zmi.at/zmi4.asc | gpg --import"
// Fingerprint: EA39 8918 EDFF 0A68 ACFB 11B7 BA2D 060F 1C6F E6B0
// Keyserver: www.keyserver.net Key-ID: 1C6FE6B0
Re: ANNOUNCE: DBMail 2.2.2 released [ In reply to ]
Aleksander wrote:
> Michael Monnerie wrote:
>> I just hope that switching to threads does not bind such a lot of
>> manpower that other features do not enhance. I don't know if it's
>> possible that multiple clients connect from different PCs via IMAP to
>> the same account, as cyrus can do.
>
> We've been doing this since dbmail 1.1.x

You can do it (I do) but it does create problems. If you connect two
thunderbirds (A and B) to the same mailbox, and A deletes messages, this
is not communicated to B, which leads B to issue illegal message id
ranges in its fetch command.

--
________________________________________________________________
Paul Stevens paul at nfg.nl
NET FACILITIES GROUP GPG/PGP: 1024D/11F8CD31
The Netherlands________________________________http://www.nfg.nl
_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
DBmail@dbmail.org
https://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
Re: ANNOUNCE: DBMail 2.2.2 released [ In reply to ]
Paul J Stevens wrote:
> If you connect two
> thunderbirds (A and B) to the same mailbox, and A deletes messages, this
> is not communicated to B, which leads B to issue illegal message id
> ranges in its fetch command.

Oh, thanks. That explains this very rare problem I have seen. I
sometimes check mail from home via ssh tunnel. And then only rarely
manage/delete/move mail. So I've seen this problem at work a few times
(I don't log out for the night, only lock the session). A TB restart helps.

Btw, TB in that case politely displays the IMAP servers error "invalid
range specified ...".

Does this only apply to Thunderbird and the specific folder where the
messages have been deleted?

Alex
_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
DBmail@dbmail.org
https://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
Re: ANNOUNCE: DBMail 2.2.2 released [ In reply to ]
dbmail 2.2.2. gentoo ebuild just added to gentoo sunrise.
http://www.gentoo-sunrise.org/sunrise/browser/sunrise/net-mail/dbmail

regards Martin
Re: ANNOUNCE: DBMail 2.2.2 released [ In reply to ]
On Thu, Feb 1, 2007, Martin Hierling <martin@mh-itc.de> said:

> dbmail 2.2.2. gentoo ebuild just added to gentoo sunrise.
> http://www.gentoo-sunrise.org/sunrise/browser/sunrise/net-mail/dbmail
>
> regards Martin

Awesome. Have you had any luck getting in touch with someone in net-mail?
Half the people I've emailed haven't even bothered responding, and the
other half say that their plates are full and since they don't use DBMail
personally, they don't care to include it into Gentoo Portage.

Other Gentooers, see here: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22331

Aaron
_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
DBmail@dbmail.org
https://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
Re: ANNOUNCE: DBMail 2.2.2 released [ In reply to ]
Aron,

Awesome. Have you had any luck getting in touch with someone in net-mail?
> Half the people I've emailed haven't even bothered responding, and the


i have tried to get g developer (for another project) but without luck.
Personally i use a bunch of overlays so it doesnt bother me to get dbmail
out of sunrise. I actually have never tried to get in touch with the
net-mail guys. But i will try next days. dbmail is not that intensive in
maintaining so perhaps someone will bring it into portage if i write the
ebuilds .... will ask.

regards Martin

1 2  View All