wasm-demo/demo/ermis-f/imap-protocol/cur/1600095021.22651.mbox:2,S

74 lines
2.6 KiB
Plaintext

MBOX-Line: From brong at fastmail.fm Fri Dec 6 20:07:22 2013
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmail.fm>
Date: Fri Jun 8 12:34:51 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Size wrong
In-Reply-To: <CABa8R6vw3ysDTyRd44CX2Y2TN95=BvP0qJAsHPtqec1PE=OUbg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANVPb6s8LbY7FxT5HG+ASs08i1_emf62-5ppgufHCtZMh5DRiA@mail.gmail.com>
<CABa8R6s1wM9R7VDY4VbrFqyMyV0q3rc-fr-dWHe+vM8xJCwFkw@mail.gmail.com>
<CABa8R6vw3ysDTyRd44CX2Y2TN95=BvP0qJAsHPtqec1PE=OUbg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1386389242.20171.56591329.4EBEE69A@webmail.messagingengine.com>
The size can never change. Why not just calculate it once at delivery time and then cache it? Or even at first fetch time.
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013, at 02:58 AM, Brandon Long wrote:
> Ah, right, we compute the attributes in alphabetical order, so normally
> we'd do the BODY first and then RFC822.SIZE would be correct. Since you're
> using the older RFC822 name instead, its coming later.
>
> Which is to say that yes the size can be off, but we tried to make it be
> correct when you request both, otherwise Thunderbird would truncate larger
> messages that were being fetched in chunks.
>
> Brandon
> On Dec 5, 2013 2:57 PM, "Brandon Long" <blong@google.com> wrote:
>
> > Why ask for the size if you're getting the whole data? j/k
> >
> > Anyways, I'm a bit surprised that it would be wrong in that context, but
> > yes, they can be off in our implementation. We've been trying to fix all
> > of our data to prevent it, but the fixes are still ongoing.
> >
> > If you want to send me the account off-list, I can take a look to see if
> > its a known issue causing it in this case or not.
> >
> > Brandon
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Davide Gullo <jazzo72@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >> I'm fetching data from Gmail IMAP server and I get this response:
> >>
> >> 20293 FETCH (X-GM-MSGID 1345230530776790491 UID 33925 RFC822.SIZE
> >> *14787* RFC822 {*14985*}
> >>
> >> Look at the RFC822.SIZE (14787), it is different from the size in
> >> RFC822 {14985}.
> >> Do you see something like that before?
> >> It could be a bug or I miss something from the IMAP protocol?
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks and Regards,
> >>
> >> --
> >> Davide Gullo
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Imap-protocol mailing list
> >> Imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
> >> http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-protocol
> >>
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Imap-protocol mailing list
> Imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
> http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-protocol
--
Bron Gondwana
brong@fastmail.fm