Re: 5.99.13 released; important upgrade for 5.99.12 users

["Jean-Yves Avenard" <jyavenard@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi

2008/5/12 John Goerzen <jgoerzen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> <wiping look of utter horror off my face>
>
> ohmygoodness.  So you're saying that in a given (mail folder?  system?),
> Exchange can only have up to 65,535 unique header names?


Yep.. that's correct. It's per database. So that includes all your
folders in all email accounts .

I had to migrate all the mailbox to a new database for the IMAP access
to work again.

This is an Exchange 2007 machine which can only run on Windows Server
64 bits !!!

And imagine that by default, the maximum ID Exchange can handle is
only around 20,000. You have to change a registry setting to make it
work up to 65,535

Will be quite easy to destroy an exchange server. Send 65536 emails,
all with a different property-id and it won't be able to receive any
more messages... haven't tried but if it fails like it did for me,
can't see why it wouldn't fail for anyone else

>
> sigh.
>
> The mind boggles.

yep, back to the *stone* age

> The reason it does the former is to make searches easier, since a given
> message may be processed by OfflineIMAP more than once (if it moves folders,
> for instance).  That way, we can request just the one specific header back,
> and for servers that cache these things, it could conceivably boost
> performance.

Hum.... I am pretty sure that I've seen more than on
x-offline-imap-xxxxxxx for a message, after I had moved it back and
forth between folders.

Same thing when I was trialling offlineimap last year (version 5.99.4)
I would run the sync a few times and would end up with multiple
x-offlineimap. I even wrote a shell script that would remove all the
x-offlineimap in the local courier-imap  messages (using awk)

> Well, I'd entertain a patch to adjust the behavior, but then you'll have to
> deal with getting back multiple X-OfflineIMAP-Id headers.  (Unless you can
> actually match the content, which I forget).
>
> Anyhow, this smells unrelated to the LocalStatus problem, so can I take it
> that my latest patch finally fixed that?

what latest patch?
I haven't had any other issue with offlineimap other than exchange
stupid 65,535 limitation