Alex, would you mind putting svn-trunk to the test. I think I've nailed this sucker. Internal_date values are now initialized by scanning the From_ line. This should make imports from mbox style mailboxes behave as expected.
However, I was unable to reproduce your problem using SM. Outlook Express behaved like you specified, but my SM installation does look at the Date field in the message. I didn't try it on dbmail-2.0 though... Alex wrote: > Paul J Stevens wrote: > >> I sympathise. It's a problem that needs solving. > > > Agreed, though how come this hasn't been fixed yet? It's a kind of thing > that would make most migrations simply impossible. > > >> Correct. It's part of one of the major new features in 2.1. > > >> Fixing the insertion chains is simpler... > > >> But give me a week or so to do this properly. > > >> I'm targetting this for 2.1.6 due shortly. > > > Alright, I can put the migration off for another week, but not longer. > Big question is, how stable/safe will 2.1.6 be? I'll definitely be doing > migration tests. If the mails are OK and so on. > > But how sure can I be that during longer use mails won't get corrupt or > the imap or pop3 daemon will start dying? Or put in other words, how far > is the planned 2.1.6 from 2.2.0? Given that you did a devel freeze with > 2.1.4, the latest HEAD should be quite good? > > Migrating from mbox to dbmail 2.1.x instead of 2.0.x does sound like a > good thing too, assuming things work. The upgrade to 2.2.x should be > easier then and the new features help a lot. > > So, assuming 2.1.6 will be released before 15th April (plausible?) and > testing with latest svn HEAD won't show any major trouble from the > start, should I go for 2.1.6? > > I have about 10+GB worth of mbox'es for 600 users, which are used used > with pop3, imap and squirrelmail/imap. Sounds like a decent test base to > me, maybe I'll be able to help out with testing too. > > So what do you think, is it worth to go for 2.1.6 for production use? > Considering 2.0.x series won't give me correct dates anyway and that's a > no go, I don't see any other way except for waiting for 2.2.0. And I > can't stall too long, not that I'd know how long that is.. > > >> Don't use forwards like that! Be explicit: > > >> dbmail-users -u username -s [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > This doesn't make much sense according to 2.0.9 man page, all the more > reason to go for 2.1.x. > > > Thanks for the active feedback, that's really important to me, > > > Alex > _______________________________________________ > Dbmail mailing list > Dbmail@dbmail.org > https://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail > -- ________________________________________________________________ Paul Stevens paul at nfg.nl NET FACILITIES GROUP GPG/PGP: 1024D/11F8CD31 The Netherlands________________________________http://www.nfg.nl
