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

Squirrelmail/uw-imap start up problems

I managed to get squirrelmail working for one account of mine that I've had for quite a while, but I am having trouble with new accounts on the same server.

What I do:

I create a new Unix account (/etc/passwd) with disabled password.
I create an entry in my /etc/cramd-md5.txt file (uw-imap authentication)

(apache, uw-imap, postfix are all local to each other)

I go to login using squirrelmail and get the following results:

The 'Current Folder' section comes up quickly with "THIS FOLDER IS EMPTY" which is expected.

The Folders section of the page comes up with:

Last Refresh: Fri, 7:21 am
(refresh folder list)

Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 8388608 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 9097 bytes) in /usr/share/squirrelmail/functions/imap_general.php on line 137

in their home directory (where the email should be going) I have:


This matches the folder structure specified in squirrelmail.

There is no ~/mbox file, but having one (on other accounts) doesn't help.

What's wrong:
The user never sees any Folders!!!

On the account that works

Squirrelmail created ~/mail/ directories and does seem to work OK.

On an entirely different machine
Squirrelmail created ~/INBOX.foo files instead of ~/mail/Drafts I have ~/INBOX.Drafts.
This one also works.
Same (?) installation of uw-imap (Debian stable)

I am also fairly certain that I can add additional accounts to this box with no problems. But I was surprised at the difference in file/folder structure.

My biggest problem at this point is that I'm really not even sure where to begin trying to figure out what's wrong. I'm not clear that the problem it with squirrelmail or uw-imap. Seeing as the files/folders are created (presumeably) by squirrelmail, I'm inclined to think that this is a Squirrelmail problem.

I don't really care which. I just need to be able to add accounts on a consistent basis.

Any suggestions on fixes, tests, things-to-look-for would be appreciated.

It's later than you think.

Reply to: