New IMAP server in Beta III - Page 2

zapata · 24 Jan 2006, 05:43 AM

So when is it actually ready?

Geir · 24 Jan 2006, 08:15 AM

We're trying to track down one last remaining significant bug which occurs rarely and randomly but affects CPU usage and must be taken care of pre-launch.

More specifically, one of the Dbmail processes hangs when a user attempts to download a seemingly random message. When trying to reproduce the problem with the same message the error does not occur. Annoying... :-/

- Geir

zapata · 24 Jan 2006, 03:51 PM

I guess the fixes for mutt/muttng will not be included?
Well, I just want to test the new server again with SSL before I cancel my subscription.
So is it ready before my renewed subscription starts in April?

Geir · 25 Jan 2006, 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by zapata
I guess the fixes for mutt/muttng will not be included?

The patch from Dbmail did not work with the Runbox version of Dbmail, so we would rather attempt to fix the Mutt folder browsing problem after Dbmail is launched. Otherwise the deployment will be delayed even more.

- Geir

zapata · 26 Jan 2006, 05:42 AM

WHEN? This is really getting boring...
How many RC's will you announce after the BETA phase?
Old server is buggy and I fear the new server will be as well. :-(
And with all your patches will we ever see a newer version of dbmail (new features) or are you stuck at dbmail 2.0.4?

zapata · 26 Jan 2006, 04:02 PM

Dbmail 2.0.8 was released on 25.01.2006.

From the dbmail homepage:

This is mostly a bugfix release with some minor additional features.

* added ON UPDATE CASCADE to create_table files
* do not close database connection on startup (closes: #271)
* change dbmail_messageblks.messageblk from longtext to longblob in mysql create scripts
* fix incorrect quoting in quoted_string_out (closes: #204)
* added CHILDREN capability
* enable QUOTA in CAPABILITY

The children capability should fix the folder browsing in mutt/muttng.

Geir · 26 Jan 2006, 08:33 PM

zapata,

We appreciate your frustration -- Dbmail should have been launched weeks ago, and because its deployment must be coordinated with database-related changes in the web application, its delay is holding up web-app developments such as nested folders.

However, I don't think we had (or have) much of an alternative. Dbmail was selected because it is database-driven and well-suited for our database-accelerated email system. Now that we've encountered a potentially serious bug we must track it down and eliminate it before deployment.

Thereafter we'll have to apply upgrades if possible, or manually patch our version of Dbmail as upgrades are released.

- Geir

MikhailT · 17 Feb 2006, 12:28 AM

hows it going so far, guys?

jonwatson · 9 Mar 2006, 12:44 PM

Any idea when this baby's going to come online on 143 or 993? I ask because I can't get Evolution to connect on 1143.

Thanks!

carverrn · 9 Mar 2006, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jonwatson
Any idea when this baby's going to come online on 143 or 993? I ask because I can't get Evolution to connect on 1143.

Thanks!

Try specifying the IMAP server as "imap.runbox.com:1143" instead of just "imap.runbox.com".

Regards,
Rich

jonwatson · 9 Mar 2006, 09:03 PM

Yeah, did that. I know that's what all the docs say and it seems to work for everyone but me. Evo just don't connect when I do that. I know it's Evo, though, because Thunderbird will connect with it.

I'd actually prefer to use TBird, but my understanding from this forum is that the >From thing in TBird is what causes the no date issue and the new server won't resolve that for TBird, specifically.

carverrn · 9 Mar 2006, 11:36 PM

The ">From" issue is only with regards to messages you've POP3 downloaded in TB from a server and then want to IMAP upload them to the current Runbox server.

If you use the beta IMAP server it shouldn't be a problem.

Regards,
Rich

jonwatson · 10 Mar 2006, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by carverrn
The ">From" issue is only with regards to messages you've POP3 downloaded in TB from a server and then want to IMAP upload them to the current Runbox server.

If you use the beta IMAP server it shouldn't be a problem.

Regards,
Rich

Oh, no - that's not the case. I don't use POP ever and the messages that I send through the beta IMAP server with TB still don't have date/times on them.

carverrn · 10 Mar 2006, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jonwatson
Oh, no - that's not the case. I don't use POP ever and the messages that I send through the beta IMAP server with TB still don't have date/times on them.

Are you talking about messages put into the "Sent" folder?

That's not the same issue as the ">From". It may have the same symptom of not having a date but it's not the same problem.

Regards,
Rich

jonwatson · 10 Mar 2006, 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by carverrn
Are you talking about messages put into the "Sent" folder?

That's not the same issue as the ">From". It may have the same symptom of not having a date but it's not the same problem.

Regards,
Rich

Ah, OK. I thought it was all one problem.

Yes, I'm referring to messages on the server 'Sent' folder. Using the new IMAP server on 1143 with TB, sent messages on the server have no date/time associated with them.

Since indications are that this is one of the problems the 1143 server is supposed to solve, that leads me to believe that this is a TB problem, no?

Bottom line is that I think TB causes the no date thing on any server, and I can't get Evo to connect to the new server. Therefore, not matter which was I turn I get no dates. That's why I'm hoping that the new server will be put on 143 or 993 soon so I can use Evo on it and see what happens.

24 Jan 2006, 05:43 AM	#16
zapata Essential Contributor Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Wien, Østerrike Posts: 375	So when is it actually ready?

24 Jan 2006, 08:15 AM	#17
Geir The "e" in e-mail Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Oslo, Norway Posts: 2,938 Representative of: Runbox.com	We're trying to track down one last remaining significant bug which occurs rarely and randomly but affects CPU usage and must be taken care of pre-launch. More specifically, one of the Dbmail processes hangs when a user attempts to download a seemingly random message. When trying to reproduce the problem with the same message the error does not occur. Annoying... :-/ - Geir

24 Jan 2006, 03:51 PM	#18
zapata Essential Contributor Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Wien, Østerrike Posts: 375	I guess the fixes for mutt/muttng will not be included? Well, I just want to test the new server again with SSL before I cancel my subscription. So is it ready before my renewed subscription starts in April?

26 Jan 2006, 05:42 AM	#20
zapata Essential Contributor Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Wien, Østerrike Posts: 375	WHEN? This is really getting boring... How many RC's will you announce after the BETA phase? Old server is buggy and I fear the new server will be as well. :-( And with all your patches will we ever see a newer version of dbmail (new features) or are you stuck at dbmail 2.0.4? Last edited by zapata : 26 Jan 2006 at 05:52 AM.

26 Jan 2006, 04:02 PM	#21
zapata Essential Contributor Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Wien, Østerrike Posts: 375	Dbmail 2.0.8 was released on 25.01.2006. From the dbmail homepage: This is mostly a bugfix release with some minor additional features. * added ON UPDATE CASCADE to create_table files * do not close database connection on startup (closes: #271) * change dbmail_messageblks.messageblk from longtext to longblob in mysql create scripts * fix incorrect quoting in quoted_string_out (closes: #204) * added CHILDREN capability * enable QUOTA in CAPABILITY The children capability should fix the folder browsing in mutt/muttng.

26 Jan 2006, 08:33 PM	#22
Geir The "e" in e-mail Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Oslo, Norway Posts: 2,938 Representative of: Runbox.com	zapata, We appreciate your frustration -- Dbmail should have been launched weeks ago, and because its deployment must be coordinated with database-related changes in the web application, its delay is holding up web-app developments such as nested folders. However, I don't think we had (or have) much of an alternative. Dbmail was selected because it is database-driven and well-suited for our database-accelerated email system. Now that we've encountered a potentially serious bug we must track it down and eliminate it before deployment. Thereafter we'll have to apply upgrades if possible, or manually patch our version of Dbmail as upgrades are released. - Geir

17 Feb 2006, 12:28 AM	#23
MikhailT Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 76	hows it going so far, guys?

9 Mar 2006, 12:44 PM	#24
jonwatson Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada, eh? Posts: 74	Any idea when this baby's going to come online on 143 or 993? I ask because I can't get Evolution to connect on 1143. Thanks!

9 Mar 2006, 09:03 PM	#26
jonwatson Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada, eh? Posts: 74	Yeah, did that. I know that's what all the docs say and it seems to work for everyone but me. Evo just don't connect when I do that. I know it's Evo, though, because Thunderbird will connect with it. I'd actually prefer to use TBird, but my understanding from this forum is that the >From thing in TBird is what causes the no date issue and the new server won't resolve that for TBird, specifically.

9 Mar 2006, 11:36 PM	#27
carverrn Intergalactic Postmaster Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 5,606 Representative of: Runbox.com	The ">From" issue is only with regards to messages you've POP3 downloaded in TB from a server and then want to IMAP upload them to the current Runbox server. If you use the beta IMAP server it shouldn't be a problem. Regards, Rich