Bron Gondwana wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 05:09:05PM +0200, Per olof Ljungmark wrote:
>> Bron Gondwana wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 12:16:01PM +0200, Rudy Gevaert wrote:
Per olof Ljungmark wrote:
> In the course of setting up delayed expunge on our production
> server I cam
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 05:09:05PM +0200, Per olof Ljungmark wrote:
> Bron Gondwana wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 12:16:01PM +0200, Rudy Gevaert wrote:
>>> Per olof Ljungmark wrote:
In the course of setting up delayed expunge on our production
server I came across the following;
On 29 Jul 2008, at 11:09, Per olof Ljungmark wrote:
> Thanks for the info. I can't help wonder if this was a firm design
> decision? From a user perspective it should be easier if this followed
> the synchronization I believe.
No, I don't think it's firm. There's been some discussion of how
del
Bron Gondwana wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 12:16:01PM +0200, Rudy Gevaert wrote:
>> Per olof Ljungmark wrote:
>>> In the course of setting up delayed expunge on our production server I
>>> came across the following;
>>>
>>> - With delayed_expunge on the master, messages that are expunged by a
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 12:16:01PM +0200, Rudy Gevaert wrote:
> Per olof Ljungmark wrote:
> > In the course of setting up delayed expunge on our production server I
> > came across the following;
> >
> > - With delayed_expunge on the master, messages that are expunged by a
> > user will be retai
Per olof Ljungmark wrote:
> In the course of setting up delayed expunge on our production server I
> came across the following;
>
> - With delayed_expunge on the master, messages that are expunged by a
> user will be retained -X days on the master but immideately deleted on
> the replica unless
