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

Re: Imap



On Tuesday 22 November 2005 11:34 am, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am 2005-11-21 04:16:02, schrieb Nate Duehr:
> > That went surprisingly well.
> >
> > Steps on a stock Debian stable system that was just running
> > basically default configuration exim4 and uw-imap were:
> >
> > 1. Shut down incoming mail/Stop exim.
> > 2. su to each user in /var/spool/mail and convert their mbox
> > mailbox to Maildir in their home directory.  (This machine doesn't
> > have a lot of users or I would have written a little script to do
> > it.)  The default of mb2md -m as long as you're the user you're
> > converting works fine.  The examples in
> > /usr/share/doc/mb2md/USAGE.gz worked fine for anything else. 3.
> > Check each user's ~/Mail folder for additional IMAP folders, and
> > convert those.
> > 4. Add these lines to each user's .procmailrc that had one:
> >     MAILDIR=$HOME/Maildir/
>
> From the procmaildocumentation:
> Do not add a "/" at the Maildir. Use only
>
>         MAILDIR=$HOME/Maildir

No, this is incorrect information, which I've tested carefully both 
ways.

This delivers messages in the format "msg.<randomstring>" (is that mh 
format?  I've never seen that.) to $HOME/Maildir directly and doesn't 
know that directory contains Maildir-style directories: 
MAILDIR=$HOME/Maildir

This works for a true Maildir directory and delivers mail to individual 
files in $HOME/Maildir/new:
MAILDIR=$HOME/Maildir/ 

Please provide a reference to the manual that's incorrect -- it should 
be corrected.  The man page for procmailrc does not have any such 
instructions in it on my Sarge system.

I have tested this both ways by adding: 
LOGFILE=/home/nate/.procmail.log
LOGABSTRACT="all"
VERBOSE="on"
To my own .procmailrc and then watching the actual behaviour of procmail 
in the .procmail.log file when it processes inbound mail.  The way you 
recommended only makes a mess in $HOME/Maildir and doesn't actually 
deliver mail.

-- 
Nate Duehr, nate@natetech.com



Reply to: