Re: [Dovecot] Shared namespace
On 5/7/2012 6:46 AM, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
On 5/6/2012 8:34 PM, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
I'm not sure what's triggered it - I THINK it has something to do with a force-resync, but not sure.
I'm no longer viewing my full list of shared mailboxes. I used to have a number of users shown - they had all had their ACL's set individually and were shown in the list. "doveadm acl debug" shows they SHOULD be shown - at least I think so, as the output for the mailboxes that DO appear is identical for those that don't.
Where should I look for breakage?
After upgrading to 2.1.6 - mailboxes are back. Not sure I want to TRY to break it again...
Ok - I broke it again. Tried changing mail_shared_explicit_inbox to no
- problem mailboxes disappeared again. Changed back to yes - they came back.
Problem with both Thunderbird and Roundcube as clients.
Daniel
On 7.5.2012, at 16.52, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Ok - I broke it again. Tried changing mail_shared_explicit_inbox to no - problem mailboxes disappeared again. Changed back to yes - they came back.
Problem with both Thunderbird and Roundcube as clients.
Try talking IMAP protocol manually:
a login user pass b list "" * c lsub "" *
Are you only talking about shared INBOXes or also other shared mailboxes? mail_shared_explicit_inbox=yes is the default and the same behavior as in previous versions. I don't think that change should be breaking anything.. Changing it to "no" could break your INBOX subscriptions, but other mailboxes should be visible.
On 5/7/2012 11:02 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On 7.5.2012, at 16.52, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Ok - I broke it again. Tried changing mail_shared_explicit_inbox to no - problem mailboxes disappeared again. Changed back to yes - they came back.
Problem with both Thunderbird and Roundcube as clients. Try talking IMAP protocol manually:
a login user pass b list "" * c lsub "" *
Are you only talking about shared INBOXes or also other shared mailboxes? mail_shared_explicit_inbox=yes is the default and the same behavior as in previous versions. I don't think that change should be breaking anything.. Changing it to "no" could break your INBOX subscriptions, but other mailboxes should be visible.
Ok - that gives us a clue. With "yes", the output from list & lsub is basically the same. With "no" - I see a truncated list (missing mailboxes), but lsub still shows them all.
-- Daniel
On 7.5.2012, at 22.13, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
On 5/7/2012 11:02 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On 7.5.2012, at 16.52, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Ok - I broke it again. Tried changing mail_shared_explicit_inbox to no - problem mailboxes disappeared again. Changed back to yes - they came back.
Problem with both Thunderbird and Roundcube as clients. Try talking IMAP protocol manually:
a login user pass b list "" * c lsub "" *
Are you only talking about shared INBOXes or also other shared mailboxes? mail_shared_explicit_inbox=yes is the default and the same behavior as in previous versions. I don't think that change should be breaking anything.. Changing it to "no" could break your INBOX subscriptions, but other mailboxes should be visible.
Ok - that gives us a clue. With "yes", the output from list & lsub is basically the same. With "no" - I see a truncated list (missing mailboxes), but lsub still shows them all.
By missing mailboxes I guess you mean the INBOXes aren't anymore in the LIST output, which is exactly what the setting is supposed to do?
On 5/7/2012 12:24 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On 7.5.2012, at 22.13, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
On 5/7/2012 11:02 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On 7.5.2012, at 16.52, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Ok - I broke it again. Tried changing mail_shared_explicit_inbox to no - problem mailboxes disappeared again. Changed back to yes - they came back.
Problem with both Thunderbird and Roundcube as clients. Try talking IMAP protocol manually:
a login user pass b list "" * c lsub "" *
Are you only talking about shared INBOXes or also other shared mailboxes? mail_shared_explicit_inbox=yes is the default and the same behavior as in previous versions. I don't think that change should be breaking anything.. Changing it to "no" could break your INBOX subscriptions, but other mailboxes should be visible.
Ok - that gives us a clue. With "yes", the output from list& lsub is basically the same. With "no" - I see a truncated list (missing mailboxes), but lsub still shows them all. By missing mailboxes I guess you mean the INBOXes aren't anymore in the LIST output, which is exactly what the setting is supposed to do?
Not exactly. Using the old style, I'd see something like:
shared
user1
inbox
user2
inbox
user3
inbox
user4
inbox
When it breaks, for whatever reason (whether it's the new setting or something I do), I get:
shared
user2
user4\
So user1 & user3 are missing entirely. If it "breaks" using the old style, then I would see user 2 & 4 inboxes - but not user 1 & 3. I also have other folders shared from each user.
The breakage is that for some reason certain users' mailboxes are simply invisible. As I said, using list vs lsub (and I don't know how those commands are used by clients), lsub will show mailboxes where list doesn't.
-- Daniel
On 7.5.2012, at 23.03, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Not exactly. Using the old style, I'd see something like:
shared
user1
inbox user2
inbox user3
inbox user4
inboxWhen it breaks, for whatever reason (whether it's the new setting or something I do), I get:
shared
user2
user4\So user1 & user3 are missing entirely. If it "breaks" using the old style, then I would see user 2 & 4 inboxes - but not user 1 & 3. I also have other folders shared from each user.
Ah, I see. Could you try if the attached patch fixes it?
On 7.5.2012, at 23.15, Timo Sirainen wrote:
So user1 & user3 are missing entirely. If it "breaks" using the old style, then I would see user 2 & 4 inboxes - but not user 1 & 3. I also have other folders shared from each user.
Ah, I see. Could you try if the attached patch fixes it?
No, it doesn't. I'll do some more tests.
On 7.5.2012, at 23.27, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On 7.5.2012, at 23.15, Timo Sirainen wrote:
So user1 & user3 are missing entirely. If it "breaks" using the old style, then I would see user 2 & 4 inboxes - but not user 1 & 3. I also have other folders shared from each user.
Ah, I see. Could you try if the attached patch fixes it?
No, it doesn't. I'll do some more tests.
OK, these should do it:
http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.1/rev/20c9446e537e http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.1/rev/41f2bcb43dad
On 5/7/2012 1:42 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On 7.5.2012, at 23.27, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On 7.5.2012, at 23.15, Timo Sirainen wrote:
So user1& user3 are missing entirely. If it "breaks" using the old style, then I would see user 2& 4 inboxes - but not user 1& 3. I also have other folders shared from each user. Ah, I see. Could you try if the attached patch fixes it? No, it doesn't. I'll do some more tests. OK, these should do it:
http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.1/rev/20c9446e537e http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.1/rev/41f2bcb43dad
Ok - new problem. Now the user mailboxes DO appear - however that's ALL I see. The Sent/Trash/whatever folders, that were previously shared & visible - gone.
Changing back to "yes" brings them back.
Daniel
On 8.5.2012, at 0.46, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Ok - new problem. Now the user mailboxes DO appear - however that's ALL I see. The Sent/Trash/whatever folders, that were previously shared & visible - gone.
Changing back to "yes" brings them back.
Hmm. Fixed in hg, but now I'm wondering about the \HasChildren vs. \HasNoChildren flags. I think the whole approach I was using can't work 100% reliably here..
participants (2)
-
Daniel L. Miller
-
Timo Sirainen