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

Re: Maildirs in Debian



Hello!

On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 12:08:14PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
...
> > My understanding was that the Maildir patches for the c-client libraries
> > (affecting the UW imapd and Pine) were not very stable.  Furthermore, as

People using non-Maildir functional Software wouldn't need to migrate
if they didn't want to.

It seems to me, that almost anybody running imap uses Courier, which
only happens to work on Maildirs.

...
> I think that having a debconf option to pick which you want would be great.
> Failing that, a migration to pure maildir would probably be good, provided
> the migration could be handled transperantly.
...

Some steps I remember:

- Change /etc/login.defs to use:
  QMAIL_DIR      Maildir/
  #MAIL_DIR        /var/spool/mail
  MAIL_FILE      Maildir/

  This only works for shadow-suite logins, MAIL_FILE is for MH, but
  aparently login does not work correctly and so it is needed as a
  workaround.

  These set the MAIL environment variable, which is used by console
  based clients (mutt), most grafical clientes ignore them :-[

- Change the default delivery method of the MDA.  procmail (standard?)
  can deliver to Maildir, but I don't know how.  The author of
  "safecat" states, that it does not do it correctly in the sense of
  failure safe file creation, so safecat is an alternative.

  The binary Qmail packages need to comply with the "standard delivery
  method" of the target system by License, so they deliver to
  /var/spool.  It has to be re-configured to the original Maildir
  delivery method, which are two steps: 1- make it use a
  "defaultdelivery" configuration file, 2- change the "standard"
  defaultdelivery to use Maildir instead of procmail.

  Can't tell about other MTA's.

For those still here with me, I write this stuff also to show, that it
is quite a hassle to get a Maildir compliant system working with
Debian, and it need not be so.

Best Regards,

     Jorge-León



Reply to: