[Dovecot] Dovecot 1.1.2? plus addressing bug in dovecot 1.1.x?

[Jon Fullmer]

I saw the release notes to Dovecot-1.1.2. Some of the fixes imply that  
this plus addressing anomaly that I experienced with 1.1.0 (and 1.1.1)  
might have been resolved with 1.1.2. Has it been?

  - Jon

On Jun 22, 2008, at 9:45 PM, Tim Sirainen wrote:

The difference is that nowadays deliver supports namespaces. How have
you configured them? For example if you have INBOX/ prefix for all your
private mailboxes, you'd have to save the mail to INBOX/spam, not spam.

Now, how to do this automatically? Well, the choices would be:

a) Remove the namespace prefix.

b) Call deliver with -m INBOX/$mailbox from your MTA. But this is
probably tricky, because if there is no + in the address you'd get -m
INBOX/. Although it still gets saved to INBOX, you'll get "invalid
mailbox name" logged.

c) Perhaps there could be a new "default namespace prefix" setting that
applies to -m parameter if it's specified. Or perhaps -m <namespace
prefix> should silently just save the mail to INBOX. Hmm. Perhaps the
latter.

Anyone else have any better ideas?

On Jun 22, 2008, at 9:25 PM, Jon Fullmer wrote:

> I had recently upgraded from Dovecot 1.0.14 to 1.1.0, and then to  
> 1.1.1.  Ever since the upgrade to 1.1.0, I noticed that "plus  
> addressing" has failed. In case I'm using a foreign phrase, this is  
> the concept of sending an e-mail to "user+spam at domain.com", and  
> having dovecot (dovecot LDA, specifically), deliver this to the  
> "spam" submailbox to "user at domain.com". I've been using this  
> successfully since 1.0.3.
>
> When I upgraded to 1.1.0, I noticed that e-mails were no longer  
> being delivered to the submailboxes as they had been (though they  
> would arrive in the central INBOX). I checked the "dovecot- 
> deliver.log", and I noticed that, ever since I had brought up 1.1.0,  
> I would see:
>
> save failed to spam: Unknown namespace
>
> ("spam" is the submailbox)
>
> After the upgrade to 1.1.1, I still would see these messages (and  
> behavior). I have since installed 1.0.15. The plus addressing now  
> works again, as it had been.
>
> With all of these "upgrades" and "downgrades", the config file has  
> remained exactly the same. There have been no other changes to any  
> components on the host system (i.e., new OS-es, new postfix, etc.).
>
> Thoughts? Is this a known issue?
>
> - Jon