[Dovecot] Not using "." as separator?
When using maildir storage, is there any way to use something besides "." as the folder separator?
I like to use folder names that match people's e-mail addresses (that's a default behavior in mutt), and "." is a pretty popular character in e-mail addresses. Ideally, I'd like to use "/".
Is "." allowed in mailbox names when using mbox storage?
-- Grant Edwards grante Yow! As President I have at to go vacuum my coin visi.com collection!
Edwards,
You can use "/" as separator, but maybe you still have some problems.
I made a quick test here to know if a dot is allowed, I'm using Thunderbird. When I created the folder "teste.ponto", TB understud that "ponto" is a subfolder of "teste".
I don't know if this is a client issue or a server issue!
[]'s, Catunda!
Grant Edwards escreveu:
When using maildir storage, is there any way to use something besides "." as the folder separator?
I like to use folder names that match people's e-mail addresses (that's a default behavior in mutt), and "." is a pretty popular character in e-mail addresses. Ideally, I'd like to use "/".
Is "." allowed in mailbox names when using mbox storage?
"GE" == Grant Edwards grante@visi.com writes:
GE> When using maildir storage, is there any way to use something
GE> besides "." as the folder separator?Please note that the following relates to dovecot 1.0. I've not looked to see if 1.1 behaves differently.
Yes you can use a namespace
namespace private {
# empty prefix indicates the default namespace
prefix =
inbox = yes
separator = /
}However using just this dovecot will still not allow maildir mailbox names to contain a '.'.
GE> I like to use folder names that match people's e-mail addresses
GE> (that's a default behavior in mutt), and "." is a pretty popular
GE> character in e-mail addresses. Ideally, I'd like to use "/".The (unofficial) listescape plugin
http://www.dovecot.org/patches/1.0/listescape-plugin.c
will allow maildir folder names to contain '.' (and '~' at the start incidentally). Note however that this is only a good solution if you are offering exclusively IMAP/POP3 access to the mailstore. If you are also exposing mailboxes directly by a filesystem interface then standard Maildir++ utilities are likely to get confused because a folder known to the client as "a.b" will appear in the filesystem with a name of 'a\2eb'.
We have used this feature to migrate from a UW imapd based service to a dovecot based service with (what I believe to be) no user visible change. [1]
GE> Is "." allowed in mailbox names when using mbox storage?Yes, I believe so.
Footnotes:
[1] Except that folders can now contain sub folders and messages.
On 2008-03-06, pod pod@herald.ox.ac.uk wrote:
GE> When using maildir storage, is there any way to use something GE> besides "." as the folder separator?
Please note that the following relates to dovecot 1.0. I've not looked to see if 1.1 behaves differently.
Yes you can use a namespace
namespace private { # empty prefix indicates the default namespace prefix = inbox = yes separator = / }However using just this dovecot will still not allow maildir mailbox names to contain a '.'.
Ah. The main point of using "/" as the separator is to allow "." to appear in mailbox names. [I don't _use_ subfolders, so I don't really need any separator at all.]
GE> I like to use folder names that match people's e-mail addresses GE> (that's a default behavior in mutt), and "." is a pretty popular GE> character in e-mail addresses. Ideally, I'd like to use "/".
The (unofficial) listescape plugin
http://www.dovecot.org/patches/1.0/listescape-plugin.c
will allow maildir folder names to contain '.' (and '~' at the start incidentally). Note however that this is only a good solution if you are offering exclusively IMAP/POP3 access to the mailstore.
I'm not.
If you are also exposing mailboxes directly by a filesystem interface
I am.
then standard Maildir++ utilities are likely to get confused because a folder known to the client as "a.b" will appear in the filesystem with a name of 'a\2eb'.
That's a pain.
We have used this feature to migrate from a UW imapd based service to a dovecot based service with (what I believe to be) no user visible change. [1]
GE> Is "." allowed in mailbox names when using mbox storage?
Yes, I believe so.
I guess I'll use mbox format for now. I really can't believe that somebody thought that not allowing "." in mailbox names was a good idea since "." is such a common character in e-mail addresses.
-- Grant Edwards grante Yow! Did an Italian CRANE at OPERATOR just experience visi.com uninhibited sensations in a MALIBU HOT TUB?
On Thu, 2008-03-06 at 16:25 +0000, Grant Edwards wrote:
then standard Maildir++ utilities are likely to get confused because a folder known to the client as "a.b" will appear in the filesystem with a name of 'a\2eb'.
That's a pain.
With v1.1 you could use a "normal" directory layout for maildirs as well with:
mail_location = maildir:~/Maildir:LAYOUT=fs
On 2008-03-06, Timo Sirainen tss@iki.fi wrote:
On Thu, 2008-03-06 at 16:25 +0000, Grant Edwards wrote:
then standard Maildir++ utilities are likely to get confused because a folder known to the client as "a.b" will appear in the filesystem with a name of 'a\2eb'.
That's a pain.
With v1.1 you could use a "normal" directory layout for maildirs as well with:
mail_location = maildir:~/Maildir:LAYOUT=fs
That will be wonderful!
I never really understood why people decided to try to emulate a filesystem using special characters in filenames. I don't know if that originated in the maildir camp or the IMAP server camp, but it's always been a real hassle for those of us who accessed thing both directly via local mail clients (who don't tread "." as special) and via an IMAP server (which does tread "." as special). Were either maildir or IMAP servers really intended to run on an OS that didn't have such a thing as directories/folders/whatever?
Right now I've switched everything to mbox format to avoid the "." pitfall, but one of my local clients only understands maildir and IMAP, so I had to switch it over to use imap://localhost/. It all works, but having to use IMAP to access files that are right there in ~/Mail bugs me. :)
-- Grant Edwards grante Yow! Did I say I was at a sardine? Or a bus??? visi.com
On Thu, 2008-03-06 at 23:15 +0000, Grant Edwards wrote:
With v1.1 you could use a "normal" directory layout for maildirs as well with:
mail_location = maildir:~/Maildir:LAYOUT=fs
That will be wonderful!
I never really understood why people decided to try to emulate a filesystem using special characters in filenames. I don't know if that originated in the maildir camp or the IMAP server camp, but it's always been a real hassle for those of us who accessed thing both directly via local mail clients (who don't tread "." as special) and via an IMAP server (which does tread "." as special). Were either maildir or IMAP servers really intended to run on an OS that didn't have such a thing as directories/folders/whatever?
It originated from Courier IMAP's Maildir++ idea. I think the main reason was that this allowed MDAs to support Maildir++ quota easily when delivering to subfolders:
- If "maildirfolder" file doesn't exist, update maildirsize file
- If "maildirfolder" file does exists, update ../maildirsize
It all works, but having to use IMAP to access files that are right there in ~/Mail bugs me. :)
I think it's better to access everything via IMAP whenever possible, because then you gain from Dovecot's indexing and caching. It should work a lot faster than if your MUA reads and parses everything over and over again.
On 2008-03-06, Timo Sirainen tss@iki.fi wrote:
- If "maildirfolder" file doesn't exist, update maildirsize file
- If "maildirfolder" file does exists, update ../maildirsize
It all works, but having to use IMAP to access files that are right there in ~/Mail bugs me. :)
I think it's better to access everything via IMAP whenever possible, because then you gain from Dovecot's indexing and caching. It should work a lot faster than if your MUA reads and parses everything over and over again.
My usual MUA (mutt) manages its own header cache database, and it's quite fast with local files. What slows things down when using IMAP is the TLS startup and authentication. Disabling TSL for localhost would probably help...
-- Grant Edwards grante Yow! Four thousand at different MAGNATES, MOGULS visi.com & NABOBS are romping in my gothic solarium!!
On Thu, 2008-03-06 at 23:42 +0000, Grant Edwards wrote:
My usual MUA (mutt) manages its own header cache database, and it's quite fast with local files. What slows things down when using IMAP is the TLS startup and authentication. Disabling TSL for localhost would probably help...
You could also make it run Dovecot directly instead of using TCP at all:
set tunnel="dovecot --exec-mail imap"
On 2008-03-07, Timo Sirainen tss@iki.fi wrote:
On Thu, 2008-03-06 at 23:42 +0000, Grant Edwards wrote:
My usual MUA (mutt) manages its own header cache database, and it's quite fast with local files. What slows things down when using IMAP is the TLS startup and authentication. Disabling TSL for localhost would probably help...
You could also make it run Dovecot directly instead of using TCP at all:
set tunnel="dovecot --exec-mail imap"
Hmm. That's an intersting option. I'll have to keep that in mind.
-- Grant Edwards grante Yow! does your DRESSING at ROOM have enough ASPARAGUS? visi.com
participants (4)
-
"Fábio M. Catunda"
-
Grant Edwards
-
pod
-
Timo Sirainen