I've never identified the reason, but Netscape does NOT seem to
'delete' things if the 'remove it immediatly' option is used - instead,
just as described here, the messages are not visable to the user but
continue to exist (However, if you set the 'Mark as deleted', the user
*can* see the messages). This behavior has existed for quite a while;
I think it existed as early as Netscape 4.05. It is (IMHO) a true 'bug',
not a feature.
With the 'remove it immeiatly' option set, even the
FILE->COMPACT THIS FOLDER option doesn't seem to get rid of these messages.
A while back I wrote a utility to delete messages marked 'deleted' and
older than a given time frame in anybody's Inbox or trash folder to
get around the problem. This was under cyrus Imap 1.6.22; I think the
current Cyrus-imap comes with a similar utility.
Personally, I use the 'mark it deleted' option and avoid the problem;
however many users dislike this approach.
*** Doug
David Lang wrote:
>
> in netscape I think the option is called something like 'compact folder'
>
> David Lang
>
> On Sun, 24 Dec 2000, William K. Hardeman wrote:
>
> > Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 02:31:21 -0500
> > From: William K. Hardeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: Brian Capouch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: 1. 2., etc., files in user.<username> directory
> >
> > Brian,
> >
> > Cool. Someone else that's using a Slackware system. Mine is
> > Slackware-current. :)
> >
> > It sounds to me as if Netscape isn't doing an expunge. From my
> > understanding of the IMAP protocol and how Cyrus implements it, no messages
> > are actually deleted until an expunge operation is requested by the client.
> > What happens is that the Delete flag is set, only. I think that both
> > Netscape and Pine aren't seeing them because the Delete flag has been set
> > in some prior session, but I could well be wrong. (If I am, I hope someone
> > will correct me.)
> >
> > I'm not sure what might be happening here, but one suggestion is to try
> > using a client that allows Deleted messages to be explicitely Expunged, and
> > see what happens to your mail store on disk, then. One such client is
> > Mulberry, which has Windows, Mac and Linux versions available. I don't
> > really know of any others, although I'm sure there are some.
> >
> > If the explicitely called Expunge works, then I'd say it's a client issue.
> > If the Expunge does not work, and the messages you expect to have been
> > deleted are still on your drive, then there might be some mis-configuration
> > or bug somewhere in your Cyrus install. I've not had any problems with mine
> > that I've noticed, so far.
> >
> > Hope this helps,
> > Will
> > William Hardeman
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > --On Saturday, December 23, 2000 21:09:33 -0500 Brian Capouch
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I just finished installing cyrus 2.0.9 on a Slackware Linux system. I
> > > had the same problems reported earlier today getting cyradm to install
> > > properly; I finally resorted to going to another machine running an
> > > earlier beta (2.0.7) and then manually copying files out of the ~/perl
> > > directory into the various perl5 system locations. Now it works like a
> > > charm.
> > >
> > > System, if it's germane to anyone, is Linux Slackware 7.0 running
> > > 2.4.0-test12.
> > >
> > > Now my question: I am the only user on this box for the time being. I
> > > want to make sure things are stable before moving any of my other users
> > > over.
> > >
> > > I seem to be able to receive messages just fine, and sieve is running
> > > (out of my home directory). However, I notice that the various messages
> > > I have received, then moved to the Trash and then later "emptied" out
> > > via Netscape, are still there in the cyrus user directory where they
> > > were initially delivered. Stated different, even though my IMAP client
> > > can't see them, *I* can if I manually go into the cyrus directory space
> > > and "ls"
> > >
> > > Is this to be expected? They don't show up when I look at my IMAP mail
> > > from either Netscape or Pine, and I'm hoping perhaps that they get
> > > purged by some other entity.
> > >
> > > But I don't think 2.0.7 did that. Can anyone tell me for sure?
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > B.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
