-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 224
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
IMAP Namespacing Change #557
Comments
@StarkZarn Can you provide the output of the |
@StarkZarn do you know which version caused the problems? In particular, I'm also running postfix/dovecot (although on Solaris, which likely isn't your OS), and after version 8.13.0, I started seeing problems with my configuration, which I traced back to the archive folder separator (hence my fix applied in 8.14.0). The change that I made specifically uses the namespace command in IMAP in order to retrieve the namespace separator so that parsedmarc was no longer using "/" as a separator (still the explicit default), which isn't consistent with the "." separator used by dovecot. Can you check against version 8.13.0 and see if the problem still occurs for you? If it does, then it's not affected by my fix (although it likely indicates that there needs to be an expansion of my fix for dovecot to handle your use case). One additional check if you can: if you can log in manually to your IMAP server and check the result of the namespace command, that would help narrow down the case here. Assuming you're using OpenSSL:
This will connect to the IMAP server. The trick is going to be ensuring that you can log in. If you have PLAIN auth or LOGIN auth enabled, you should be able to use:
To log in, at which point you should be able to issue the namespace command using:
This will respond with a list of tuples, looking something like:
Based on the error message, you may see something like
Which indicates you need an At any rate, if you can check the prior version (8.13.0) and also get the response to the If you can't get the namespace command to work, please take a look at the |
@StarkZarn One other thought for an easy test for the latest version would be to change the |
Hey thanks so much for the fast turn around! I apologize for not having more data for you up front, it's been a busy week. The quoted reply 100% works, so well done on that thought process @gaige. Do you still need the other data to localize faults or does it make enough sense now? I really appreciate the work you've both put into this, great stack here! |
Glad to hear the diagnostics worked. It would still be helpful to get the output of the IMAP namespace command in order to have this work out of the box. If that is possible. Thanks for the quick reply! |
@seanthegeek I see two ways of handling this.
Second option may be the most straightforward as it'll require the least amount of work on behalf of anyone adopting it. However, there's going to be an additional question of how we handle shared mailboxes in an IMAP store in the event that there are separate namespaces. I can do a search for the prefix in the In that case, the documentation adjustment should be that we support IMAP namespaces and default to the private namespace per the spec. |
Note that this might possibly not be a problem with |
Solid point. The documentation for |
@gaige You're right. The relevant IMAP code is here: seanthegeek/mailsuite@01cb8a8 |
@seanthegeek That's super odd. As you mentioned, that changed shouldn't have triggered the behavior.. |
I don't pin many dependencies in |
By manually applying the changes one by one I've found the cause; see seanthegeek/mailsuite#11. |
After a recent update, I started receiving the following error when parsedmarc tries to retrieve reports from my inbox.
I haven't changed my mail server during this time, so I suspect it's something to do with how parsedmarc is trying to access the folder. In my parsedmarc.ini file I have the following
[mailbox]
parameters set.The mail server is a basic postfix/dovecot stack.
Looking at recent issues, I suspect it might have something to do with a change made in #552 to resolve #551 but I don't know for certain.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: