Linux supports fsync() on directories to flush metadata to disk. Is there
any work to to implement fsync() on directories under Linux? Are there
any patches anywhere for this? If not, what filesystem operations does
Cyrus assume will update directory entries synchronously? Anything other
than
On Tue, 21 May 2002, Ema Nymton wrote:
> Sorry for posting in the CVS list.
>
> Server is running on a Debian 2.2r6, that's the matter doc ?
Remove the "db" entries from /etc/nsswitch.conf. Leave the "files"
entries (or whatever else is there) alone.
-Chris
On Wed, 22 May 2002, Ema Nymton wrote:
> Thank you very much Chris, that was the trick :-)
>
> Now because I do not want to die stupid, could you precise why this
> modification was needed ? I suppose if nsswitch returns a "tryagain",
> "unavail" or "notfound" value for `db` statement, it should
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007, Dale Ghent wrote:
> On Dec 21, 2007, at 12:03 PM, Mike Eggleston wrote:
>
>> There is some system (on freshmeat?) that has a special folder in IMAP
>> for storing calendar events. The program uses the IMAP defined protocol
>> though.
>
> FWIW, Exchange also exposes all calen
On Fri, 16 May 2008, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am delivering mail to cyrus from exim using lmtpd.
>
> Apparently lmtpd adds the Return-Path header only after the sieve
> scripts have been processed, because in the scripts I cannot match this
> header.
This was fixed back in 2.2. See
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Scott Adkins wrote:
> What have you guys done? I am more interested in the larger email
> system, ones receiving on the order of 500k+ messages a day. Is it
> abnormal to see such a large volume of postmaster mail like this? Have
> any of you developed a sieve script that w
Before I start digging through the source, does lmtpd add the Return-Path
header before or after calling sieve routines? The first recipe below
works, the second does not.
# works
require ["fileinto","regex"];
if allof (header :regex "From" ".*") {
fileinto "test1";
}
#fails
require ["fi
e them. Does that sound like
the correct fix?
-Chris
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Chris Stromsoe wrote:
> Before I start digging through the source, does lmtpd add the
> Return-Path header before or after calling sieve routines? The first
> recipe below works, the second does not.
>
>
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Pat Lashley wrote:
> --On Monday, September 22, 2003 18:08:23 -0700 Chris Stromsoe
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > From what I can tell, ...
> >
> > While there may not be much call to match against the last-hop
> > received header (
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Pat Lashley wrote:
> --On Monday, September 22, 2003 19:02:11 -0700 Chris Stromsoe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Pat Lashley wrote:
> >
> >> Can't you get what you want using the "envelope" extension?
x27;t important as far as the return path is
concerned in this case: it isn't the final delivery step, lmtpd is.
> --On Monday, September 22, 2003 19:32:07 -0700 Chris Stromsoe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > The expectation is that sieve will be able to match on an
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Andrew Morgan wrote:
> I can't believe I'm wading into this discussion... :)
:)
> It sounds to me like the return-path header should be added when the
> message is delivered to its final resting place. When sieve is looking
> at the message, it hasn't been delivered yet.
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Pat Lashley wrote:
> --On Monday, September 22, 2003 22:40:00 -0700 Chris Stromsoe
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I keep mentioning Envelope-To because 30+ years of Software Engineering
> experience tells me that if you handle Return-Path, people will
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Pat Lashley wrote:
> --On Tuesday, September 23, 2003 02:18:50 -0700 Chris Stromsoe
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > out of ~40,000 messages I've got handy, between 50 and 60 had some
> > variant of envelope-to (either plain or with x- or ol
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Rob Siemborski wrote:
> In any case, the suggested patch would need to handle all of the
> potential headers, not just Return-path. (I still haven't quite settled
> on wether to take it or not though).
I sent a more complete patch to devel-cyrus to cache both the Received an
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Rob Siemborski wrote:
> Ah, I missed that (or forgot). X-Sieve is added as part of
> func->addheaders, so it might be a bit more interesting...
Is addheaders used for anything other than the X-Sieve header? Was it
ever intended to be used for more?
If it was only ever inte
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Pat Lashley wrote:
> It wasn't clear whether you were testing incoming messages or ones
> already in mailboxes. And your statement above certainly implies that a
> bit less than 10% of the messages do NOT have a Return-Path header. Is
> that in fact the case; or was that 40,
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Pat Lashley wrote:
> Are you intentionally missing my point; or am I just not being
> sufficiently clear?
I'm not missing your point (I think) -- I don't agree with it.
Just because lmtp is linked to sieve is no reason to assume that they are
(or should be) functionally int
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Rob Siemborski wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Pat Lashley wrote:
>
> > Once again. The fact that that header is predictively inserted into
> > the disk file is immaterial. It is even arguably wrong. (Although
> > that argument is likely to fail in the face of the performance
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Rob Siemborski wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Chris Stromsoe wrote:
>
> > If it was intended to be a generic "headers to add to every message"
> > interface, do you have any objection to broadening it into an array of
> > struct Header {},
20 matches
Mail list logo
