dovecot - Apr 2006 - Re: mail shown throught outlook, shows todays date

> bclark wrote:
>
> > The interesting thing is, once I have some mail on the dovecot,  
> the date
> > displayed on Mozilla is correct, but the mail shown throught  
> outlook,
> > shows todays date (thats for all mail).
>
> Each mail has (at least) two dates : the date it was sent (stored  
> in the
> headers), and the date it arrived (in Maildir, the date of the  
> file).  Most
> likely, Mozilla and SquirrelMail are showing the date in the  
> headers, and Outloo
> is showing the arrival date.
>
> This problem has come up a few times, I believe.  As I recall, most  
> mail clients
> allow you to select which date to sort by.  If you can't find the  
> option, it may
> be somewhere in this list's archives.
>
> > Almost seems as Outlook (office 2000) looks at the date / time  
> stamp of
> > the file it self as opposed to opening and reading the mail and  
> reading
> > the necassry tags.
>
> That's my assessment, also.
>
> > If anyone could help me understand this (is this a dovecot issue), I
> > would really appreciate it.
>
> I don't believe it's a dovecot issue, per se.
>
> --
> Curtis Maloney
> cmaloney <at> cardgate.net
I've been testing Dovecot 1.0beta7 to implement IMAP for the first  
time, and have had a good experience so far.

But like Curtis and Brent, I found that Outlook and Outlook Express  
display "incorrect" dates on messages uploaded via APPEND. That's
because they sort messages using INTERNALDATE:

wea3 SELECT "Test Folder"
pqng UID FETCH 1:* (UID FLAGS RFC822.SIZE BODY.PEEK[HEADER]  
INTERNALDATE)

Some have created scripts to sync file timestamps with "Date"  
headers, which conflicts with the concept of "INTERNALDATE".  Others  
ask users to add the "Date Sent" column, but those dates are only  
revealed after a message is viewed.

I'd like to propose the attached patch to add an optional "outlook- 
dates" IMAP workaround, which returns the message "Date:" even
when
INTERNALDATE is specified.

Since "BODY.PEEK" is being called anyway, our tests didn't reveal
any
performance impact.  Can anyone think of a scenario this would  
negatively impact? Another option might be to patch the APPEND function?

Thanks!

Rich Sandberg
richs at whidbey.net

-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: outlook-dates.txt
URL:
<http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20060427/73492efe/attachment.txt>
-------------- next part --------------

On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 13:54 -0700, richs at whidbey.net
wrote:
> I'd like to propose the attached patch to add an optional
"outlook-
> dates" IMAP workaround, which returns the message "Date:"
even when
> INTERNALDATE is specified.
Oh, that's evil. I always want to sort using the real INTERNALDATE
because Date-header can sometimes be broken (especially with spams).
> Since "BODY.PEEK" is being called anyway, our tests didn't
reveal any
> performance impact.  Can anyone think of a scenario this would  
> negatively impact? Another option might be to patch the APPEND function?
APPEND sounds better to me.. You could even make it get the timestamp
from the first Received-header if it exists, which makes it pretty close
to INTERNALDATE's idea.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL:
<http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20060428/50b2ac40/attachment.bin>

On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 01:54:30PM -0700, richs at whidbey.net wrote:
> I'd like to propose the attached patch to add an optional
"outlook-
> dates" IMAP workaround, which returns the message "Date:"
even when
> INTERNALDATE is specified.
> 
> Since "BODY.PEEK" is being called anyway, our tests didn't
reveal any
> performance impact.  Can anyone think of a scenario this would  
> negatively impact? Another option might be to patch the APPEND function?
hey, cool.. I was just about to start looking at this problem myself
as I have a number of Outlook users here (and I have been using
Outlook a bit myself for test purposes, and noticed this too.)

thanks ;)

grant.