From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eric Abrahamsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#35443: 27.0.50; Gnus (nnimap) shows "ghost" messages in summary buffer Date: Thu, 09 May 2019 13:15:00 -0700 Message-ID: <87ftpn75bv.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> References: <87wojfjxry.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <87h8ajjhux.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <87lfztiqu3.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <871s1735ec.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="67118"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: 35443@debbugs.gnu.org To: Ulrich Mueller Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu May 09 22:16:15 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hOpSf-000HIr-8u for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 09 May 2019 22:16:13 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60419 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hOpSe-0005kO-8i for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 09 May 2019 16:16:12 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:39620) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hOpSW-0005k8-Go for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 09 May 2019 16:16:05 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hOpSU-0006do-P6 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 09 May 2019 16:16:03 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:51236) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hOpSU-0006dI-52 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 09 May 2019 16:16:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hOpST-0000AW-Uh for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 09 May 2019 16:16:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eric Abrahamsen Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 09 May 2019 20:16:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 35443 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 35443-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B35443.1557432910573 (code B ref 35443); Thu, 09 May 2019 20:16:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 35443) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 May 2019 20:15:10 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36545 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hOpRe-00009B-21 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 09 May 2019 16:15:10 -0400 Original-Received: from ericabrahamsen.net ([52.70.2.18]:51636 helo=mail.ericabrahamsen.net) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hOpRc-00008u-Vk for 35443@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 09 May 2019 16:15:09 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost (50-251-205-17-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.251.205.17]) (Authenticated sender: eric@ericabrahamsen.net) by mail.ericabrahamsen.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9FC7BFA621; Thu, 9 May 2019 20:15:02 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: (Ulrich Mueller's message of "Thu, 09 May 2019 21:03:38 +0200") X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.51.188.43 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:159006 Archived-At: Ulrich Mueller writes: >>>>>> On Thu, 09 May 2019, Eric Abrahamsen wrote: > >> Okay, here's what I was told on irc: > >> looks like it's the new feature that adds $HasAttachment or >> $HasNoAttachment flags to mails. they're actually supposed to be added >> only during mail delivery, and there's a setting needed to enable them: >> mail_attachment_detection_options = add-flags-on-save >> but .. there's an "unintentional feature" :) that they also get added >> during some FETCH commands if they're not already there >> but even without this, imap protocol allows sending FETCH FLAGS updates >> (or any updates really) as a response to any command. and with >> concurrent imap access dovecot does this. >> for example if another client adds a \Seen flag, that same thing could >> happen >> either way, a client should really be able to process these >> "unexpeceted" FETCH updates, that's what the standard is about >> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- > >> Ultimately, the "real" fix would be to teach Gnus to handle all possible >> responses from IMAP servers, probably using a proper parser. > >> But if you have access to the dovecot config in your case, you might try >> removing the mail_attachment_detection_options setting above, if it's >> set. If it's not set, then you might be getting the "unintentional >> feature". > > Thank you very much for your help. Indeed the add-flags-on-save option > was enabled in the config file. Gentoo's infrastructure team has agreed > to disable it for now, which made the problem go away. Well that was lucky. >> I suppose in the interim I could mess with `nnimap-transform-headers' >> and try to add some bookkeeping so that multiple FETCH responses for >> the same article UID get merged together. On the other hand, this >> feature only seems to relate to has/hasnoattachment flags, which Gnus >> doesn't handle anyway -- we could safely drop those lines altogether. > >> (Though it sure would be nice to handle hasattachment flags, that's >> something that users have requested in the past...) > > Maybe drop the extra FETCH responses for now, and add proper bookkeeping > later when implementing the requested feature? Okay, I'll work something up in the next week that goes halfway with this. Glad it's partially fixed. Eric