sync_client bails out after 3 MAILBOXES need upgrading to USER in one run

Bron Gondwana brong at
Wed Sep 13 09:06:32 EDT 2006

On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 09:14:17 +0100 (BST), "David Carter" <dpc22 at> said:
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Wesley Craig wrote:
> > On a related note, what was the problem with accepting the Cambridge 
> > patches for delayed folder deletion?  I'm interested in working on 
> > getting that or similar code accepted.  Now that we have delayed expunge 
> > for messages, we continue to run tape backups only for the case where 
> > users inadvertently delete folders.
> [ ... other things about delayed mailbox deletion ... ]
> Without (1) or (2), delayed mailbox deletion is really nothing more 
> exciting than a RENAME operation to some part of the mailbox hierarchy 
> without a quota root that only the system administrator can access.

Ho hum de dum... of course.  Why didn't I think of that.  Much easier
than trying to fiddle around with the filesystem level deletion code.

I smell a patch, some time when I'm more awake and not managing the
migration of users to smaller partitions (note to those who haven't
been bitten yet - don't ever put thousands of users on a 2Tb filesystem.
Just about everything than could possibly go wrong means days of
downtime, and users _hate_ that)

Hrm... first edge case that sounds interesting, deleting a folder that
has subfolders without deleting the subfolders as well...

My urgent todo list is down to about 10 items now, and I'm sure at
least one of those is easy :)

  Bron Gondwana
  brong at

More information about the Info-cyrus mailing list