View Issue Details
ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0000450 | SOGo | Web Preferences | public | 2010-02-22 16:25 | 2010-03-12 21:40 |
Reporter | koen | Assigned To | |||
Priority | normal | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | always |
Status | resolved | Resolution | fixed | ||
Product Version | 1.2.1 | ||||
Target Version | 1.2.2 | Fixed in Version | 1.2.2 | ||
Summary | 0000450: Sieve script not activated | ||||
Description | Hi, We are testing the Vacation module included in SOGo. The SOGo log contains these entries: We've tried to debug this by setting up a packet sniffer between the managesieve server and SOGo, relevant results will be added as additional information (the packet list is continuous, no packets were left out). We are using SOGo 1.2.1-1.el5 from the yum repository. The problem can easily be reproduced by simply logging on, going to the preferences in your account, active the vacation auto-reply, save and close. I hope I've provided you with enough information about this problem. Kind regards, Koen | ||||
Additional Information | Packet 01: mailserver -> SOGo jMm>'DE!@@ N.>8. Packet 02: SOGo -> mailserver
Packet 03: SOGo -> mailserver
Packet 04: mailserver -> SOGo jMm>'DE4"@@ N/o>. Packet 05: SOGo -> mailserver
Packet 06: mailserver -> SOGo jMm>'DE4#@@ N/o>. Packet 07: mailserver -> SOGo jMm>'DEE$@@ N/o>.j Packet 08: SOGo -> mailserver
Packet 09: mailserver -> SOGo jMm>'DE_%@@ N/>.j Packet 10: SOGo -> mailserver
Packet 11: mailserver -> SOGo jMm>'DEj&@@ N/>.| Packet 12: SOGo -> mailserver
This is an automated test message, please discard. Kind regards, . Packet 13: SOGo -> mailserver
Packet 14: SOGo -> mailserver
l Packet 15: mailserver -> SOGo jMm>'DE<@@& RB4 Packet 16: SOGo -> mailserver
. Packet 17: mailserver -> SOGo jMm>'DE@@L .* Packet 18: SOGo -> mailserver
46 Packet 19: SOGo -> mailserver
46 Packet 20: mailserver -> SOGo jMm>'DE4@@ 44.2 Packet 21: SOGo -> mailserver
446 Packet 22: mailserver -> SOGo jMm>'DE4@@ 46.0 Packet 23: mailserver -> SOGo jMm>'DEE@@ 46. Packet 24: SOGo -> mailserver
6E6 Packet 25: mailserver -> SOGo jMm>'DER@@ EK. Packet 26: SOGo -> mailserver
Kc6 Packet 27: mailserver -> SOGo jMm>'DEj@@n cM. | ||||
Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
Can you retry with the latest nightly build? |
|
Nope, still problems with 1.2.2.20100308 When no sogo script exists, then the sogo.bc and sogo.script are created on the server, but the symlink is not created. When we then remove/deactive all entries, the @defaultbc is removed, but on activation it is only created on the second save. André |
|
Hi Guido, Can you try again with the next nigthlies? |
|
No, it does still not work. Here the traffic of the first save as seen by tcpdump: "IMPLEMENTATION" "Cyrus timsieved v2.2.12-Debian-2.2.12-4ubuntu1" So the script is saved on the server, but not yet activated. "IMPLEMENTATION" "Cyrus timsieved v2.2.12-Debian-2.2.12-4ubuntu1" I see two differences: In the first activation, there is no existing sogo script, so the deletion fails. André |
|
Here what I see in the sogo.log on the first upload: Mar 12 08:06:59 sogod: SOGo watchdog [23900]: <0x01E4F1F0[SOGoMailAccount]:andre_A_schild_D_ws_A_mail1_D_aarboard_D_ch> WARNING: Could not d Here the tcp dump of the conversion: Looking at the SOGoMailAccount.m everything looks fine, so I assume that probably in the sope-mime/NGImap4/NGSieveClient.m file, the status of the failed DELETESCRIPT is somehow retained and then also returned for the following upload script command... André |
|
Hi André, Are you sure you restarted SOGo properly after the update? |
|
Strange... here the update log of this morning: Processing triggers for man-db ... Then the restart of sogo: Times UTC+1 Now this evening: etting up libsope-xml4.9 (4.9.r1664.20100312) ... And the sogo restart: (UTC+1) Mar 12 21:53:38 sogod: SOGo watchdog [23899]: <0x0xdca300[WOWatchDog]> Terminating with signal 15 And now it works, thanks. Looks like the debian builds this morning where still at 2010-03-11 level, instead of 2010-03-12. Perhaps it would help, when you mention in which release the problem was fixed, so we don't hunt ghosts when some build/deployment fails. Anyway, thanks a lot. André |
|
Fixed in ae2731aedf2ba81e571b426efe36751b90702b6b. |
|
Hi André, Yes and no... The 11th was clearly yesterday at the time, even for your timezone so I assumed that you would understand what "next nightlies" meant based at least on the date my message was written. What is useful to know is that we have a 6 hour offset with Western Europe, and the packages are built between 6 and 7 in the morning, which means 11 or 12 for you... |
|
Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
---|---|---|---|
2010-02-22 16:25 | koen | New Issue | |
2010-02-23 14:07 | ludovic | Target Version | => 1.2.2 |
2010-03-08 16:45 | ludovic | Note Added: 0000675 | |
2010-03-08 17:40 | aschild | Note Added: 0000679 | |
2010-03-11 21:56 |
|
Fixed in Version | => 1.2.2 |
2010-03-11 21:58 |
|
Note Added: 0000714 | |
2010-03-12 06:37 | aschild | Note Added: 0000715 | |
2010-03-12 07:23 | aschild | Note Added: 0000716 | |
2010-03-12 20:31 |
|
Note Added: 0000719 | |
2010-03-12 21:05 | aschild | Note Added: 0000720 | |
2010-03-12 21:38 |
|
Note Added: 0000721 | |
2010-03-12 21:38 |
|
Relationship added | duplicate of 0000398 |
2010-03-12 21:38 |
|
Duplicate ID | 0 => 398 |
2010-03-12 21:38 |
|
Status | new => resolved |
2010-03-12 21:38 |
|
Resolution | open => fixed |
2010-03-12 21:38 |
|
Assigned To | => wsourdeau |
2010-03-12 21:40 |
|
Note Added: 0000722 |