I saw the release notes to Dovecot-1.1.2. Some of the fixes imply that
this plus addressing anomaly that I experienced with 1.1.0 (and 1.1.1)
might have been resolved with 1.1.2. Has it been?
- Jon
On Jun 22, 2008, at 9:45 PM, Tim Sirainen wrote:
The difference is that nowadays deliver supports namespaces. How have
you configured them? For example if you have INBOX/ prefix for all your
private mailboxes, you'd have to save the mail to INBOX/spam, not spam.
Now, how to do this automatically? Well, the choices would be:
a) Remove the namespace prefix.
b) Call deliver with -m INBOX/$mailbox from your MTA. But this is
probably tricky, because if there is no + in the address you'd get -m
INBOX/. Although it still gets saved to INBOX, you'll get "invalid
mailbox name" logged.
c) Perhaps there could be a new "default namespace prefix" setting that
applies to -m parameter if it's specified. Or perhaps -m <namespace
prefix> should silently just save the mail to INBOX. Hmm. Perhaps the
latter.
Anyone else have any better ideas?
On Jun 22, 2008, at 9:25 PM, Jon Fullmer wrote:
I had recently upgraded from Dovecot 1.0.14 to 1.1.0, and then to
1.1.1. Ever since the upgrade to 1.1.0, I noticed that "plus
addressing" has failed. In case I'm using a foreign phrase, this is
the concept of sending an e-mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]", and
having dovecot (dovecot LDA, specifically), deliver this to the
"spam" submailbox to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". I've been using this
successfully since 1.0.3.
When I upgraded to 1.1.0, I noticed that e-mails were no longer
being delivered to the submailboxes as they had been (though they
would arrive in the central INBOX). I checked the "dovecot-
deliver.log", and I noticed that, ever since I had brought up 1.1.0,
I would see:
save failed to spam: Unknown namespace
("spam" is the submailbox)
After the upgrade to 1.1.1, I still would see these messages (and
behavior). I have since installed 1.0.15. The plus addressing now
works again, as it had been.
With all of these "upgrades" and "downgrades", the config file has
remained exactly the same. There have been no other changes to any
components on the host system (i.e., new OS-es, new postfix, etc.).
Thoughts? Is this a known issue?
- Jon
