On 3/8/2011 12:52 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2011-03-08 12:47 PM, Tom Talpey wrote:
(dovecot 2.0.11 / TB 3.0.4)
I think you're on to something here.
You do need to update TB too you know...
The number of bugs squashed since 3.0.4 are too vast too even begin to
contemplate...
It's actual
On 2011-03-08 12:47 PM, Tom Talpey wrote:
> (dovecot 2.0.11 / TB 3.0.4)
>
> I think you're on to something here.
You do need to update TB too you know...
The number of bugs squashed since 3.0.4 are too vast too even begin to
contemplate...
--
Best regards,
Charles
On 3/8/2011 11:55 AM, Knute Johnson wrote:
On 03/06/2011 03:46 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On 7.3.2011, at 1.39, Dave McGuire wrote:
That said, I've been testing Timo's imap_capabilities suggestion
for about the past 45mins, and it seems to solve the problem for
me, at least so far.
So it sound
On 03/06/2011 03:46 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On 7.3.2011, at 1.39, Dave McGuire wrote:
That said, I've been testing Timo's imap_capabilities suggestion
for about the past 45mins, and it seems to solve the problem for
me, at least so far.
So it sounds like there's a bug in someone's QRESYNC co
>
> That said, I've been testing Timo's imap_capabilities suggestion for
> about the past 45mins, and it seems to solve the problem for me, at
> least so far.
Do you think you could narrow it down to just one of the capabilities
being removed? (I think that makes sense?)
Ed W
On 3/6/11 6:46 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
That said, I've been testing Timo's imap_capabilities suggestion
for about the past 45mins, and it seems to solve the problem for
me, at least so far.
So it sounds like there's a bug in someone's QRESYNC code. Either
Dovecot or Thunderbird, but could be a
On 7.3.2011, at 1.39, Dave McGuire wrote:
> That said, I've been testing Timo's imap_capabilities suggestion for about
> the past 45mins, and it seems to solve the problem for me, at least so far.
So it sounds like there's a bug in someone's QRESYNC code. Either Dovecot or
Thunderbird, but cou
On 3/6/11 6:30 PM, Ed W wrote:
No, only the "OK Still here" notifications are timed like that. If you
have inotify/dnotify/kqueue enabled, Dovecot sends the actual mailbox
changes to clients immediately when they happen.
OK, but following that thought, it still seems possible for three
connecti
On 06/03/2011 22:24, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-03-06 at 20:31 +, Ed W wrote:
>
>> My best hunch is that there is some shared code in Dovecot to send IDLE
>> updates every so often and it's hashed on username and IP (I think?),
>
> No, only the "OK Still here" notifications are time
On 03/06/2011 12:22 PM, Knute Johnson wrote:
On 03/06/2011 07:22 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On 6.3.2011, at 16.51, Stephen Usher wrote:
Obviously there's a difference in behaviour for some reason when
TB3 interacts with Cyrus IMAP as it seems not to have a problem
with that IMAP server. It's alm
On 03/06/2011 07:22 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On 6.3.2011, at 16.51, Stephen Usher wrote:
Obviously there's a difference in behaviour for some reason when
TB3 interacts with Cyrus IMAP as it seems not to have a problem
with that IMAP server. It's almost as if TB3 expects to be informed
when ther
On Sun, 2011-03-06 at 20:31 +, Ed W wrote:
> My best hunch is that there is some shared code in Dovecot to send IDLE
> updates every so often and it's hashed on username and IP (I think?),
No, only the "OK Still here" notifications are timed like that. If you
have inotify/dnotify/kqueue enab
On Sun, 2011-03-06 at 10:47 -0500, Dave McGuire wrote:
> On 3/6/11 10:22 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> >> Obviously there's a difference in behaviour for some reason when TB3
> >> interacts with Cyrus IMAP as it seems not to have a problem with that IMAP
> >> server. It's almost as if TB3 expects to
On 06/03/2011 14:51, Stephen Usher wrote:
> Actually it doesn't matter what the second client is (it can be another
> copy of TB3), the important thing is that TB3 doesn't notice the change
> underneath it. (The programmers seem to assume that it will have
> exclusive access to the mailbox from wha
On 3/6/11 10:22 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Obviously there's a difference in behaviour for some reason when TB3 interacts
with Cyrus IMAP as it seems not to have a problem with that IMAP server. It's
almost as if TB3 expects to be informed when there has been a deletion. (TB3
will notice other s
On 6.3.2011, at 16.51, Stephen Usher wrote:
> Obviously there's a difference in behaviour for some reason when TB3
> interacts with Cyrus IMAP as it seems not to have a problem with that IMAP
> server. It's almost as if TB3 expects to be informed when there has been a
> deletion. (TB3 will noti
On 06/03/2011 03:45, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
If you're not doing local sync with TB and you have GLODA disabled, TB
is going to show you exactly what's in your Dovecot mailbox. If the
message doesn't disappear from your TB view sometime after deleting it
on your smartphone, then I'd say it's very l
On 03/05/2011 07:45 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
If you're not doing local sync with TB and you have GLODA disabled,
TB is going to show you exactly what's in your Dovecot mailbox. If
the message doesn't disappear from your TB view sometime after
deleting it on your smartphone, then I'd say it's ver
Knute Johnson put forth on 3/5/2011 8:36 PM:
> On 03/05/2011 12:24 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> Stan Hoeppner put forth on 3/5/2011 1:34 PM:
>> Also, did you delete the sync copies and the GLODA sqlite index file
>> from the user profile? IIRC, TB will still read the files if they
>> exist, even af
Stan Hoeppner put forth on 3/5/2011 1:34 PM:
> Stephen Usher put forth on 3/5/2011 12:57 PM:
>> On 05/03/2011 18:04, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>> I don't believe it's an issue of Tbird talking to Dovecot, and I don't
>>> believe it's a Dovecot issue. I believe it's a combination of the TB
>>> GLODA sy
Stephen Usher put forth on 3/5/2011 12:57 PM:
> On 05/03/2011 18:04, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> I don't believe it's an issue of Tbird talking to Dovecot, and I don't
>> believe it's a Dovecot issue. I believe it's a combination of the TB
>> GLODA system and local folder synchronization. I recommend
On 05/03/2011 18:04, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I don't believe it's an issue of Tbird talking to Dovecot, and I don't
believe it's a Dovecot issue. I believe it's a combination of the TB
GLODA system and local folder synchronization. I recommend you disable
both of these, close TB, then manually del
Stephen Usher put forth on 3/5/2011 10:04 AM:
> I know that this is a somewhat old thread but I do have some useful input.
>
> Basically, this seems to be a Thunderbird problem (or at least an
> interaction problem between Thunderbird and Dovecot).
>
> Before Thunderbird version 3 there wasn't a
Ok, this is too weird. Not ten seconds ago I sent a message to the
list about what could be exactly this problem. I'd been fighting with
it for ages but only today became annoyed enough to send a message about it.
So telling Thunderbird to only use one server connection solves this
pro
I know that this is a somewhat old thread but I do have some useful input.
Basically, this seems to be a Thunderbird problem (or at least an
interaction problem between Thunderbird and Dovecot).
Before Thunderbird version 3 there wasn't a problem, the mailbox within
Thunderbird would sync cor
On 26.1.2011, at 12.47, Nigel Webber wrote:
> How can I get the courier behaviour where the inbox in one email client
> automagically reflects the changes made to that inbox in another client?
Try talking IMAP protocol manually:
telnet localhost 143
a login user pass
b select inbox
c idle
Then
On 26/01/2011 13:08, Giles Coochey wrote:
On 26/01/2011 12:29, Nigel Webber wrote:
I should have mentioned that this is not iPhone specific, the same
behaviour may be observed for 2 simultanious connections from 2
separate machines running Thunderbird.
TLS/SSL is used on both.
dovecot config
On 26/01/2011 12:29, Nigel Webber wrote:
I should have mentioned that this is not iPhone specific, the same
behaviour may be observed for 2 simultanious connections from 2
separate machines running Thunderbird.
TLS/SSL is used on both.
dovecot config file below:
mbox_write_locks: fcntl dotlo
I should have mentioned that this is not iPhone specific, the same
behaviour may be observed for 2 simultanious connections from 2 separate
machines running Thunderbird.
TLS/SSL is used on both.
dovecot config file below:
Nigel
# 1.2.9: /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf
# OS: Linux 2.6.18-028stab069
Am 26.01.2011 11:47, schrieb Nigel Webber:
> Hi
>
> I've been using courier for some time, but have just built a new box and
> am using dovecot (V1.2.9), Ubuntu 10.04LTS. I have a question regarding
> multiple concurrent imap connections and how to get dovecot to behave in
> the same way that cour
On 26/01/2011 11:47, Nigel Webber wrote:
Hi
I've been using courier for some time, but have just built a new box
and am using dovecot (V1.2.9), Ubuntu 10.04LTS. I have a question
regarding multiple concurrent imap connections and how to get dovecot
to behave in the same way that courier does.
Hi
I've been using courier for some time, but have just built a new box and
am using dovecot (V1.2.9), Ubuntu 10.04LTS. I have a question regarding
multiple concurrent imap connections and how to get dovecot to behave in
the same way that courier does. I have searched the wiki, but find
littl
32 matches
Mail list logo
