Re: [Dovecot] litte problems upgrade from 1.0.x to 1.1.1

2008-07-21 Thread Andre Hübner
Servus, Jul 16 08:45:55 servername dovecot: Panic: IMAP(user): file message-parser.c: line 770 (message_parser_parse_next_block): assertion failed: (ctx->input->eof || ctx->input->closed || ctx->input->stream_errno != 0 || ctx->broken) Line 770. #6 0x080bbfa0 in message_parser_parse_heade

Re: [Dovecot] litte problems upgrade from 1.0.x to 1.1.1

2008-07-21 Thread Timo Sirainen
On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 11:59 +0200, Andre Hübner wrote: > Jul 16 08:45:55 servername dovecot: Panic: IMAP(user): file > message-parser.c: line 770 (message_parser_parse_next_block): assertion > failed: (ctx->input->eof > || ctx->input->closed || ctx->input->stream_errno != 0 || ctx->broken) Line

Re: [Dovecot] litte problems upgrade from 1.0.x to 1.1.1

2008-07-21 Thread Andre Hübner
Hi, Can you get a gdb backtrace from this crash? See http://dovecot.org/bugreport.html additional to my last mail now a cordump was created this is dovecot -n # 1.1.1: /etc/dovecot.conf protocols: imap imaps pop3 pop3s ssl_ca_file: /path/path/*.myservername.com.bundle.crt ssl_cert_file: /pa

Re: [Dovecot] litte problems upgrade from 1.0.x to 1.1.1

2008-07-15 Thread Andre Hübner
Hi, thanks for your mail :) Right. Dovecot creates such a "DO NOT DELETE" mail just as UW-IMAP/ Pine does. It's created when all messages from the mbox get deleted, so that UIDVALIDITY and NEXT-UID fields can be stored (without relying on them staying in index files). But these messages should

Re: [Dovecot] litte problems upgrade from 1.0.x to 1.1.1

2008-07-07 Thread Timo Sirainen
On Jul 7, 2008, at 3:33 PM, Andre Hübner wrote: Dovecot does not use mail messages to store folder meta-data as far as I know so I highly doubt this message was created by Dovecot (does Dovecot even send out messages except when going over quota?). Also notice the date of 2006-09-18, which i

Re: [Dovecot] litte problems upgrade from 1.0.x to 1.1.1

2008-07-07 Thread Andre Hübner
Hi, Dovecot does not use mail messages to store folder meta-data as far as I know so I highly doubt this message was created by Dovecot (does Dovecot even send out messages except when going over quota?). Also notice the date of 2006-09-18, which is almost two years in the past. The message

Re: [Dovecot] litte problems upgrade from 1.0.x to 1.1.1

2008-07-04 Thread Andreas Ntaflos
On Wednesday 02 July 2008 08:52:41 Andre Hübner wrote: > Sometime it happens that 1 user out of x (more than 100) got this > standardmessage for ~1 or ~2 thousend times in his mailbox (mbox) > > for example: > >From MAILER_DAEMON Mon Sep 18 16:16:14 2006 > > Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:16:14 +0200

Re: [Dovecot] litte problems upgrade from 1.0.x to 1.1.1

2008-07-04 Thread Andre Hübner
Hi, It's not UW-IMAP (the server). It's PINE or Alpine (the client). Those are usually found in on-disk mbox files that have been created by PINE/Alpine. The message is ignored by PINE/Alpine (obviously), but when you switch to a different mailer, it doesn't know to ignore it (and shouldn't be ex

Re: [Dovecot] litte problems upgrade from 1.0.x to 1.1.1

2008-07-03 Thread Benjamin R. Haskell
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008, Andre Huebner wrote: Hi, These are created by the University of Washington's implementation of an IMAP server. Notice the date is nearly 2 years ago. At some point, it seems your site was running imap-uw. -- Fred It's not UW-IMAP (the server). It's PINE or Alpine (the

Re: [Dovecot] litte problems upgrade from 1.0.x to 1.1.1

2008-07-03 Thread Andre Huebner
Hi, These are created by the University of Washington's implementation of an IMAP server. Notice the date is nearly 2 years ago. At some point, it seems your site was running imap-uw. -- Fred nope, i dont think so. i created completly new mailbox and mailed to it from extern. after deleting

Re: [Dovecot] litte problems upgrade from 1.0.x to 1.1.1

2008-07-03 Thread Fred Condo
On Jul 1, 2008, at 11:52 PM, Andre Hübner wrote: Hi List, last time i did a lot of packaging and installing different versions of dovecot 1.0.x (rc not included ;) )and all was fine. Now a have a little problem. In this case it was an update from 1.0.13 to 1.1.1 Sometime it happens that 1