[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]


On Sat, 17 Mar 2001, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:

> On Sun, 4 Mar 2001, Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote:
> Sorry for the late reply I'm way behind on my debian-devel reading.

Better late than never :) You seem to actually be the only one that
bothered answering. I appreciate that. That's much, much better than
pine's own maintainers/developers did.

Debian communiy is great!

> Is there any reason why you aren't using uw-imapd-ssl?  As the name
> suggests it has built in SSL capabilities.

Yes, potato distribution on the server and, of course, inertia :)
One doesn't upgrade a server (install packages that were not
originally meant for that distribution) unless one _has to_.

> imapd locks the mailbox so only one client can access it at a time.  If a
> second client connection is attempted it can't get the lock and gets that
> error message.  You should check to see if you have stale imapd
> processes lying around.  These can be caused by client timeouts in some
> cases or by the SSL taking too long to start up or shut down.

No stale imapd processes lying around. Most likely the "SSL taking too
long" thing applies in my case. The pine-sslwrap-imapd chain seems to
have totally collapsed, lately. Do you know if stunnel performs

> IMAP 2000 (packages: uw-imapd2000 and uw-imapd-ssl2000) should be a lot
> better in this regard.

I'm in the process of building those packages (ripped from sid) on a
potato box, bu see above.

> > PS. Incidentally, looking through the log, I see traces from an
> >     earlier pine buffer overflow flopout caused by lengthy message
> >     header entries, and which are now glued to the famous first
> >     message in the mailbox.
> >     Is there some way to wash that out?
> >
> You can actually delete that message now, imapd doesn't use it anymore.

pine 4.33 does not show that message. Is there another way of deleting
it I'm not aware of?


Reply to: