From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Michael Welsh Duggan Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#56332: 29.0.50; Large gnus imap groups; articles incorrectly marked as read (old) Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2022 12:40:04 -0400 Message-ID: <877d4v4gez.fsf@md5i.com> References: <875ykh9vo1.fsf@md5i.com> <87o7y9xjhd.fsf@gnus.org> <87ilohxiu0.fsf@gnus.org> <87letc7rqn.fsf@md5i.com> <87mtdr3esq.fsf@gnus.org> <87r1334mfm.fsf@md5i.com> <87r133zgfu.fsf@gnus.org> <87ilof4i8x.fsf@md5i.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="39703"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen , 56332@debbugs.gnu.org To: Michael Welsh Duggan Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Jul 02 18:41:14 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1o7gBF-000A9b-Nq for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 02 Jul 2022 18:41:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53462 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1o7gBE-00048U-9y for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 02 Jul 2022 12:41:12 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:41250) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1o7gB4-00048I-7m for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Jul 2022 12:41:02 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:48829) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1o7gB3-00009M-Th for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Jul 2022 12:41:01 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1o7gB3-00044S-SK for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Jul 2022 12:41:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Michael Welsh Duggan Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2022 16:41:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 56332 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 56332-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B56332.165678001415567 (code B ref 56332); Sat, 02 Jul 2022 16:41:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 56332) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 Jul 2022 16:40:14 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42726 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1o7gAH-00042z-L3 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 02 Jul 2022 12:40:14 -0400 Original-Received: from md5i.com ([75.151.244.229]:36052) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1o7gAF-00042k-Rs for 56332@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 02 Jul 2022 12:40:12 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=md5i.com; s=dkim; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:References:In-Reply-To: Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=ZnbrzGFW3ZEP6sXb6eFl9cNRp/mPp4uCCxmu6uvjQRg=; b=duzfJTzOC/GA0mNvfOP9P/3AGD yo9Q8K0Pg67vbAfl5IBnaRylBunVzBFBGJl/VlNAc2sT8Y9CGoHet8kT74s0sennJfEnDLnFQiSWt 7U7LpreoyrWBmZttMv8oJLllT; Original-Received: from abode ([192.168.177.1] helo=miko) by md5i.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.95) (envelope-from ) id 1o7gA8-00Gm95-Rj; Sat, 02 Jul 2022 12:40:04 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87ilof4i8x.fsf@md5i.com> (Michael Welsh Duggan's message of "Sat, 02 Jul 2022 12:00:30 -0400") X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:235933 Archived-At: Michael Welsh Duggan writes: > Lars Ingebrigtsen writes: > >> Michael Welsh Duggan writes: >> >>> 2) When the problem happens, it seems to happen because the order of the >>> fetch responses do not appear in the order of the fetches themselves. >> >> Oh, that's interesting. IMAP is a streaming protocol, so if you send >> two commands after one another, you should first get the responses from >> the first, and then from the last. It sounds like UID FETCH doesn't >> respect that? >> >> In which case the simple solution would be to wait until the first >> command has ended before issuing a new one, but that would make things a >> bit slower (depending on the latency of the connection). >> >> Hm... OK, I've tried this myself now, and I can definitely see >> something odd here. I don't see shuffled headers, but I see >> >> OUTPUT FROM FIRST >> OUTPUT FROM SECOND >> 26166 OK Fetch completed (0.002 + 0.000 + 0.001 secs). >> 26167 OK Fetch completed (0.002 + 0.000 + 0.001 secs). >> >> So that seems to support this -- UID FETCH is not really streamable (at >> least not with this IMAP server). I'm using Dovecot -- are you using >> the same? > > I am using Dovecot. I am betting that the only reason I am seeing > shuffled headers is due to the larger group, and maybe due to the > sparsity of the UIDs. More fetches grant more opportunity for random > re-ordering. > > I will also note that, though the fetch data responses are not in order, > the fetch completion messages are in order. Though I'm not certain they > have to be. Here's some data from the Internet, though I can't find > anything in the standard that seems to either confirm or refute this > data: > > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/26034086/does-imap-guarantee-that-servers-send-responses-in-order > > Wouldn't another solution be to sort the results by UID? They are being > requested in UID order, after all. You should probably read this section of the RFC, especially the "Note:". https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3501#section-5.5 -- Michael Welsh Duggan (md5i@md5i.com)