[Dovecot] How safe is mbox_very_dirty_syncs?

[Timo Sirainen]

On Tue, 2005-09-27 at 10:59 +0100, Chris Wakelin wrote:
> Now we aren't running UW-IMAP at all, how safe is mbox_very_dirty_syncs
> assuming the only other process writing to mailboxes is our MTA (exim)
> which simply appends messages to the end? 

It should have been safe even with UW-IMAP and other software changing
the mbox. Only problem with it is that it might not have catched
external flag updates as early as possible.

mbox_very_dirty_syncs just makes Dovecot opportunistic about thinking
the mails are where Dovecot last saw them, but if at any point Dovecot
notices that they're not where they should be, it just re-reads the
entire mbox.

> Is it safer still using Dovecot 1.0-alphas and the LDA? 

If you're using now 1.0-stable, I'd think 1.0.alpha3 is better/safer in
general :)

> Does it matter if there are concurrent connections to the mailbox?

Nope.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20050927/c1c21ccc/attachment.pgp