Hi All,
I have observe that camel-mapi-store open a connection with Exchange server
and put it in "known_connections" list. This mapi-store connection is used
for periodically checking mails and updating inbox folders. If you get
mail, this connection is responsible to download those mails with periodic
polling. While composing a mail and send, function "mapi_send_to_sync"
tries to search all "known_connections" list and will pick the same
connection to send mail which one was used for downloading mails.
[code]
static gboolean
mapi_send_to_sync (CamelTransport *transport,
CamelMimeMessage *message,
CamelAddress *from,
CamelAddress *recipients,
GCancellable *cancellable,
GError **error){
......
conn = e_mapi_connection_find (profile);
......
}
This could lead to MAPI RESOLVE NAME ISSUE. Thus i have decided to create a
new connection while sending mail and then dispose off the connection. i
did the required code modification in "mapi_send_to_sync" function as
follows.
conn = e_mapi_connection_new (e_mail_session_get_registry
(E_MAIL_SESSION
(camel_service_get_session (service))),
profile, NULL, cancellable, &mapi_error);
I build it and tried to use it. IT was UNSUCCESSFUL. it was
NT_STATUS_WRITE_FAULT as follows. I lost in sea. What to do next i am not
sure. Any idea??
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting GENSEC mechanism spnego
Starting GENSEC submechanism ntlmssp
negotiate: struct NEGOTIATE_MESSAGE
Signature : 'NTLMSSP'
MessageType : NtLmNegotiate (1)
NegotiateFlags : 0x60088205 (1611170309)
1: NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_UNICODE
0: NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_OEM
1: NTLMSSP_REQUEST_TARGET
0: NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_SIGN
0: NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_SEAL
0: NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_DATAGRAM
0: NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_LM_KEY
0: NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_NETWARE
1: NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_NTLM
0: NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_NT_ONLY
0: NTLMSSP_ANONYMOUS
0: NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_OEM_DOMAIN_SUPPLIED
0: NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_OEM_WORKSTATION_SUPPLIED
0: NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_THIS_IS_LOCAL_CALL
1: NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_ALWAYS_SIGN
0: NTLMSSP_TARGET_TYPE_DOMAIN
0: NTLMSSP_TARGET_TYPE_SERVER
0: NTLMSSP_TARGET_TYPE_SHARE
1: NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_EXTENDED_SESSIONSECURITY
0: NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_IDENTIFY
0: NTLMSSP_REQUEST_NON_NT_SESSION_KEY
0: NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_TARGET_INFO
0: NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_VERSION
1: NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_128
1: NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_KEY_EXCH
0: NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_56
DomainNameLen : 0x0009 (9)
DomainNameMaxLen : 0x0009 (9)
DomainName : *
DomainName : 'WORKGROUP'
WorkstationLen : 0x0009 (9)
WorkstationMaxLen : 0x0009 (9)
Workstation : *
Workstation : 'localhost'
../librpc/rpc/dcerpc_util.c:140: auth_pad_length 0
Got challenge flags:
Got NTLMSSP neg_flags=0x62898205
NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_UNICODE
NTLMSSP_REQUEST_TARGET
NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_NTLM
NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_ALWAYS_SIGN
NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_NTLM2
NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_TARGET_INFO
NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_VERSION
NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_128
NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_KEY_EXCH
NTLMSSP: Set final flags:
Got NTLMSSP neg_flags=0x60008205
NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_UNICODE
NTLMSSP_REQUEST_TARGET
NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_NTLM
NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_ALWAYS_SIGN
NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_128
NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_KEY_EXCH
dcerpc: alter_resp - rpc fault: WERR_ACCESS_DENIED
Failed to bind to uuid 1544f5e0-613c-11d1-93df-00c04fd7bd09 for
1544f5e0-613c-11d1-93df-00c04fd7bd09@ncacn_ip_tcp:casarray1.hp.com[60052,print]
NT_STATUS_NET_WRITE_FAULT
Failed to connect to remote server: ncacn_ip_tcp:casarray1.hp.com[print,]
NT_STATUS_NET_WRITE_FAULT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regards,
Samarjit
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 4:59 AM, Zan Lynx <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-02-21 at 10:26 +0100, Milan Crha wrote:
> > > After doing a lot of R&D my intuition says that it is a memory
> > > corruption issue.
> >
> > valgrind usually helps in such cases. You can run evolution like this:
> > $ valgrind --num-callers=50 evolution &>log.txt
> > and valgrind will check evolution for some memory issues.
>
> I would like to offer a hint here. I have done this in the past and I
> recommend using a test user account with only a very few test emails in
> it.
>
> When I attempted to run valgrind evolution on my own email account it
> never actually managed to load. I killed it after several minutes.
> Valgrind slows everything down.
> --
> Knowledge Is Power
> Power Corrupts
> Study Hard
> Be Evil
>
> _______________________________________________
> evolution-hackers mailing list
> [email protected]
> To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ...
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
>
_______________________________________________
evolution-hackers mailing list
[email protected]
To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ...
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
