If you change layout to FS you are basically required to migrate users to it. You cannot change layout "on the fly".
Duly noted.
Many thanks,
Arnold Opio Oree Chief Executive Officer Parallax Digital Technologies
arnoldoree@parallaxdt.com
tel : +44 (0) 333 577 8587 fax : +44 (0) 20 8711 2477
Parallax Digital Technologies is a trading name of Parallax Global Limited. U.K. Co. No. 08836288
The contents of this e-mail are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient you are to delete this e-mail immediately, disregard its contents and disclose them to no other persons.
From: Aki Tuomi via dovecot dovecot@dovecot.org
Reply-To: Aki Tuomi aki.tuomi@open-xchange.com
To: arnoldoree@parallaxict.com, Arnold Opio Oree <
arnold.oree@parallaxict.com>, Dovecot Mailing List Subject: Re: Applying Dovecot for a large / deep folder-hierarchy
archive.
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 13:44:25 +0300 If you change layout to FS you are basically required to migrate users
to it. You cannot change layout "on the fly". Aki On 27.6.2019 13.42, Arnold Opio Oree via dovecot wrote: Hello Aki, Thank you greatly for your advice, it is really valuable to know that
the key criteria for our desired application of Dovecot are
supported (our groupware stacks are running Dovecot 2.3.4.1) prior to
commencing operations to configure Dovecot and migrate enterprise
data. Thanks for the word of caution with regards to mbox format; that was
a
slip of the tongue on my part, our groupware stacks are using Maildir
format (I will also look into sdbox as I had not been aware of it as
a
viable alternative), although we have yet to change the LAYOUT to fs The only areas of uncertainty for me now are whether Dovecot will be
able to change directory layout to fs where emails are already held
in
user mailboxes with Maildir++ directory layout; and secondly what the
best protocol will be to get the Outlook PST data into the Dovecot
mailbox. I will research these points, if however there is any best
practice that you are aware of, then it will be great to know. Very best, Arnold Opio Oree
Chief Executive Officer
Parallax Digital Technologies arnoldoree@parallaxdt.com tel : +44 (0) 333 577 8587
fax : +44 (0) 20 8711 2477 Parallax Digital Technologies is a trading name of Parallax Global
Limited. U.K. Co. No. 08836288 The contents of this e-mail are confidential. If you are not the
intended recipient you are to delete this e-mail immediately,
disregard
its contents and disclose them to no other persons. -----Original Message-----
From: Aki Tuomi via dovecot <
dovecot@dovecot.org Reply-To: Aki Tuomi <
aki.tuomi@open-xchange.com To:
arnoldoree@parallaxict.com
, Arnold Opio Oree <
arnold.oree@parallaxict.com , Dovecot Mailing List <
dovecot@dovecot.org Subject: Re: Applying Dovecot for a large / deep folder-hierarchy
archive.
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 08:35:17 +0300 On 26.6.2019 22.12, Arnold Opio Oree via dovecot wrote: Hello to you all, I'd like to ask about my intended application of Dovecot to create
a
folder-hierarchy for storing our enterprise emails, which are
treated
as live data rather than archives for compliance or occasional /
reactive retrieval. The data is presently not that large (a few gigabytes), but it is
expected to grow rapidly. Up to this stage the data has been
contained
in a Microsoft Exchange mailbox (2013), and then in an offline PST.
The move to the offline PST was by necessity, as the large number
of
folders, and depth of hierarchy to my best understanding caused the
exchange server / outlook / evolution mail clients to begin to
malfunction. To cope with this the archive was broken up and the
bulk
stored in the offline PST and the most active components stored in
online Exchange mailboxes. I have some understanding of the fs mbox format, and also the
mitigations to be made for certain characters / strings. My main
concern is whether Dovecot is likely to be able to cope well with a
large number of folders / depth of hierarcy. I will really appreciate any help / advice you can give. Best regards, Arnold Opio Oree Hi! Dovecot 2.2.34/2.3 supports unlimited folder depth, the only limiting
factor is that the total name may not exceed 4096 bytes. Also
individual
folder names may not exceed 255 bytes. Prior to that the limit is 255 per folder up to 16 levels. I can't recommend using 'mbox' storage format, please consider using
maildir or sdbox instead. Aki