<DKIM> maxage causes loss of local email
janna.martl109 at gmail.com
Thu Mar 12 05:00:28 GMT 2015
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 01:36:45AM +0100, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:
>local_messageslist # ONE SCAN for messages in range [(maxage + 1)..lastest]
>server_messageslist # ONE FETCH for messages in range [(maxage + delta + 1)..lastest]
>local_lowest_uid = None
># Assumed UID ordered, lowest to biggest.
>for m in local_messageslist:
> if (maxage) < m[uid]['rtime']
> # Processing uids for messages > (maxage)
> if uid in server_messageslist:
> local_lowest_uid = local_messageslist[uid]
># Clean the lists for messages we should not sync.
>if local_lowest_uid != None:
> for mlist in [local_messageslist, server_messageslist]:
> for uid in mlist:
> if uid > local_lowest_uid:
> del mlist[uid]
Oh! I thought you were talking about a slightly different strategy,
hence the confusion. However, I'm worried about the following:
A B C
-24 0 24
-24 0 24
Now local_lowest_uid will stay undefined, the remote messagelist will
be [A,B,C], and the local messagelist will be . This will lead to A
(and B and C) being deleted on the server, which is bad because A
actually existed locally.
The obvious way to fix this is to check the internal date, and not
delete messages on the server with internaldate < maxage. But I
thought we were trying to avoid using internaldate, and I'm not sure
why this would be better than what I was trying to do before.
Alternatively, we could get (maxage + 2) days of local messages,
exclude remote messages that fall on the (maxage + 2) local list but
not the (maxage + 1) local list, then reduce the local list to maxage
+ 1, and continue with the above procedure. Essentially this is
forcing it to look like Case 1, not Case 2.
More information about the OfflineIMAP-project