Re: Migration murder from 3.2 to 3.10 (Debian 11 to 13) – problems with shared folders
Frank Richter <[email protected]> Tue, 5 May 2026 14:07:55 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.mail.imap.cyrus |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Am 29.04.26 um 09:40 schrieb Frank Richter: > Quoting Jean Charles Del=C3=A9pine: >> >> Quoting Frank Richter <[email protected]>: >> >>> We=E2=80=99re facing a problem with shared folders. Our shared folders = have this=20 >>> scheme: "group.sub.name" >>> The problem occurs when creating a new shared folder=20 >>> "group.sub.othername" on backend "packet": >>> >>> 2026-04-28T12:57:40.824198+02:00 packet cyrus/imaps[2647805]: MUPDATE:= =20 >>> can't commit mailbox entry for 'group' >>> 2026-04-28T12:57:40.828960+02:00 packet cyrus/imaps[2647805]: Fatal=20 >>> error: Internal error: assertion failed: imap/imapd.c: 1494:=20 >>> !open_mailboxes_exist() >>> >>> Hm, "group" shouldn=E2=80=99t be a mailbox, at least it wasn't on cyrus= -imapd=20 >>> 3.2.11. But now there is : >> >> In the Cyrus IMAP 3.6 Releases you will find : >> >> Major changes since the 3.4 series >> >> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 All members of a newly created mailbox hierarchy will= now be=20 >> selectable mailboxes. In other words, when creating mailbox=20 >> user.foo.A.B.C, both user.foo.A and user.foo.A.B will also be created as= =20 >> real mailboxes.=20 > I read this =E2=80=A6 and hoped that this is the case only for user.* mai= lboxes. > Now in my setup this means that I can=E2=80=99t distribute my shared fold= ers=20 > group.* between backends any longer =E2=80=93 all group mailboxes have to= be on=20 > the same backend server now. This hurts (a bit). If this would be the sam= e=20 > for user mailboxes, then a murder setup makes nearly no sense.=20 How does other admins of a Cyrus murder handle this, is anyone using shared= =20 folders? We use it a lot for group scenarios, such as mailboxes for project= ,=20 departments etc. So for us the "pinning" of all group folders to only one=20 backend server isn't optimal. Would it be reasonable to have a configuration option for the namespace of= =20 shared mailboxes, so that for this name no mailbox will be created? Thanks, Frank --=20 Frank Richter, Chemnitz University of Technology, Germany ------------------------------------------ Cyrus: Info Permalink: https://cyrus.topicbox.com/groups/info/Te7a1ee0606b2df5d-Mf91dfa= e61179dff984bd124a Delivery options: https://cyrus.topicbox.com/groups/info/subscription