search for: a0050

...; > * 3 FETCH (UID 3 FLAGS (\Recent)) > > * 1 EXPUNGE > > * 3 RECENT > > a0030 OK Store completed (0.004 + 0.000 + 0.003 secs). > > a0040 OK Expunge completed (0.004 + 0.000 + 0.003 secs). > > > > > > Verify what's left in the mailbox with: > > a0050 UID FETCH 1:4 FLAGS > > * 1 FETCH (UID 2 FLAGS (\Recent)) > > * 2 FETCH (UID 3 FLAGS (\Recent)) > > * 3 FETCH (UID 4 FLAGS (\Recent)) > > a0050 OK Fetch completed (0.001 + 0.000 secs). > > > > > > Since 1 to 3 should be \Deleted and then EXPUNGEd, we should...

...e that the results from UID STORE + EXPUNGE gives: * 2 FETCH (UID 2 FLAGS (\Recent)) * 3 FETCH (UID 3 FLAGS (\Recent)) * 1 EXPUNGE * 3 RECENT a0030 OK Store completed (0.004 + 0.000 + 0.003 secs). a0040 OK Expunge completed (0.004 + 0.000 + 0.003 secs). Verify what's left in the mailbox with: a0050 UID FETCH 1:4 FLAGS * 1 FETCH (UID 2 FLAGS (\Recent)) * 2 FETCH (UID 3 FLAGS (\Recent)) * 3 FETCH (UID 4 FLAGS (\Recent)) a0050 OK Fetch completed (0.001 + 0.000 secs). Since 1 to 3 should be \Deleted and then EXPUNGEd, we should only have UID 4 left, not uid 2-4 without Deleted flag. Try same...

...s: > * 2 FETCH (UID 2 FLAGS (\Recent)) > * 3 FETCH (UID 3 FLAGS (\Recent)) > * 1 EXPUNGE > * 3 RECENT > a0030 OK Store completed (0.004 + 0.000 + 0.003 secs). > a0040 OK Expunge completed (0.004 + 0.000 + 0.003 secs). > > > Verify what's left in the mailbox with: > a0050 UID FETCH 1:4 FLAGS > * 1 FETCH (UID 2 FLAGS (\Recent)) > * 2 FETCH (UID 3 FLAGS (\Recent)) > * 3 FETCH (UID 4 FLAGS (\Recent)) > a0050 OK Fetch completed (0.001 + 0.000 secs). > > > Since 1 to 3 should be \Deleted and then EXPUNGEd, we should only have UID 4 > left, not uid...

Am 04.05.2015 um 21:04 schrieb Santiago Vila: > Greetings. > > Thanks to Jelmer Vernooij, who has just uploaded version 2.2.16 for > Debian unstable, I can confirm that this bug may still be reproduced > in version 2.2.16, so it has *not* been fixed yet. > > Several months ago I was told "I can't reproduce it in dovecot hg", or > something like that. Well,

...\Seen \Deleted) > A0041 EXPUNGE > A0042 FETCH 1 RFC822.HEADER > A0043 FETCH 1 BODY.PEEK[TEXT] > A0044 STORE 1 +FLAGS (\Seen \Deleted) > A0045 EXPUNGE > A0046 FETCH 1 RFC822.HEADER > A0047 FETCH 1 BODY.PEEK[TEXT] > A0048 STORE 1 +FLAGS (\Seen \Deleted) > A0049 EXPUNGE > A0050 FETCH 1 RFC822.HEADER > A0051 LOGOUT > > After this, mbox folder inbox-b is corrupted, as the line saying > > From: abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz at example.com > > becomes > > rstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz at example.com > > >...

...039 FETCH 1 BODY.PEEK[TEXT] A0040 STORE 1 +FLAGS (\Seen \Deleted) A0041 EXPUNGE A0042 FETCH 1 RFC822.HEADER A0043 FETCH 1 BODY.PEEK[TEXT] A0044 STORE 1 +FLAGS (\Seen \Deleted) A0045 EXPUNGE A0046 FETCH 1 RFC822.HEADER A0047 FETCH 1 BODY.PEEK[TEXT] A0048 STORE 1 +FLAGS (\Seen \Deleted) A0049 EXPUNGE A0050 FETCH 1 RFC822.HEADER A0051 LOGOUT After this, mbox folder inbox-b is corrupted, as the line saying From: abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz at example.com becomes rstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz at example.com So: Could we please stop blaming fetchmail for this? It'...

...gt;> A0042 FETCH 1 RFC822.HEADER >> A0043 FETCH 1 BODY.PEEK[TEXT] >> A0044 STORE 1 +FLAGS (\Seen \Deleted) >> A0045 EXPUNGE >> A0046 FETCH 1 RFC822.HEADER >> A0047 FETCH 1 BODY.PEEK[TEXT] >> A0048 STORE 1 +FLAGS (\Seen \Deleted) >> A0049 EXPUNGE >> A0050 FETCH 1 RFC822.HEADER >> A0051 LOGOUT >> >> After this, mbox folder inbox-b is corrupted, as the line saying >> >> From: abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz at example.com >> >> becomes >> >> rstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz...

...\Seen \Deleted) > A0041 EXPUNGE > A0042 FETCH 1 RFC822.HEADER > A0043 FETCH 1 BODY.PEEK[TEXT] > A0044 STORE 1 +FLAGS (\Seen \Deleted) > A0045 EXPUNGE > A0046 FETCH 1 RFC822.HEADER > A0047 FETCH 1 BODY.PEEK[TEXT] > A0048 STORE 1 +FLAGS (\Seen \Deleted) > A0049 EXPUNGE > A0050 FETCH 1 RFC822.HEADER > A0051 LOGOUT > > After this, mbox folder inbox-b is corrupted, as the line saying > > From: abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz at example.com > > becomes > > rstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz at example.com is this related...