On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 09:14:17 +0100 (BST), "David Carter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Wesley Craig wrote:
>
> > On a related note, what was the problem with accepting the Cambridge
> > patches for delayed folder deletion? I'm interested in working on
> > getting that or si
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Wesley Craig wrote:
On a related note, what was the problem with accepting the Cambridge
patches for delayed folder deletion? I'm interested in working on
getting that or similar code accepted. Now that we have delayed expunge
for messages, we continue to run tape backup
On 12 Sep 2006, at 16:51, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
interesting. is one of the replicas off-site? you don't worry about
EMP or stuff like that? for how long do you keep the expunged
messages?
I think turning off tape backup would be a very tough sell around
here...
In our test runs, res
On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 10:25 -0400, Wesley Craig wrote:
> Now that we have delayed
> expunge for messages, we continue to run tape backups only for the
> case where users inadvertently delete folders.
interesting. is one of the replicas off-site? you don't worry about
EMP or stuff like that?
quot;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Info Cyrus"
Sent: 8/29/06 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: sync_client bails out after 3 MAILBOXES need upgrading
to USER in one run
On 29 Aug 2006, at 04:35, David Carter wrote:
My original code (which we are still running: I'm not in any hurry
to upg
PROTECTED]>
To: "David Carter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Bron Gondwana" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ken Murchison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
"Info Cyrus"
Sent: 8/29/06 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: sync_client bails out after 3 MAILBOXES need upgrading to
On 29 Aug 2006, at 04:35, David Carter wrote:
My original code (which we are still running: I'm not in any hurry
to upgrade to 2.3) sorts mailbox actions by user. If a single
mailbox action associated with a user fails the rest are discarded
and a USER event is generated. If the USER event f
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006, Bron Gondwana wrote:
I've attached my trivial solution (against CVS of last week some time),
but I'm thinking a better (as in, less wasteful) solution might be to
not return an error at all for a failed mailbox, but instead keep
walking the entire tree, and then generate a
