From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/53313 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David S Goldberg Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Is *anyone* else loosing expiry marks in nnimap buffers? Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:24:24 -0400 Organization: I Yam What I Yam Sender: ding-owner@lists.math.uh.edu Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1057177498 6541 80.91.224.249 (2 Jul 2003 20:24:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:24:58 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: ding-owner+M1857@lists.math.uh.edu Wed Jul 02 22:24:51 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from malifon.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.13]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19Xo9R-0001f3-00 for ; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 22:24:25 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.math.uh.edu) by malifon.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 19Xo9m-000374-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:24:46 -0500 Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com ([64.157.176.121]) by malifon.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 19Xo9f-00036y-00 for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:24:39 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 6262 invoked by alias); 2 Jul 2003 20:24:39 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 6257 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2003 20:24:38 -0000 Original-Received: from smtpproxy2.mitre.org (192.80.55.70) by sclp3.sclp.com with SMTP; 2 Jul 2003 20:24:38 -0000 Original-Received: from avsrv2.mitre.org (avsrv2.mitre.org [128.29.154.4]) by smtpproxy2.mitre.org (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h62KOc6r003704 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:24:38 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from MAILHUB2 (mailhub2.mitre.org [129.83.221.18]) by smtpsrv2.mitre.org (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h62KOZOD009150 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:24:35 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from blackbird.mitre.org (129.83.3.35) by mailhub2.mitre.org with SMTP id 3066739; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:24:25 -0400 Original-To: The Gnus Mailing List X-Face: GUaHTH@nS>[7,ME@-gYZ4#Wl{z"99k@[[Y8AcP0x1paqu.,z9,XSV1WI>{q3f6^e5(zrit <4fV&VHhmE`uidRqtmG27;si9&r;#KSF~E#$%W8w(xdp)H4tW=\2XOk~3=@oGqqpj;m4xf Ow;y26396&,34@9#~4;@*S;E0cq"LM9N(us4P%F(Nxis'Vvfm9?KufH;:Q$dMa-QWGLR&K d0`LJZE8xb*>^yN>b]_NcU:E=Zn\1=#/(OS2 In-Reply-To: (Wes Hardaker's message of "Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:54:24 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code, cygwin32) Precedence: bulk Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:53313 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:53313 >>>>> On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:54:24 -0700, Wes Hardaker said: >>>>> On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:18:47 -0400, David S Goldberg >>>>> said: David> But are the messages actually there on the server? I've found two David> problems that might be related to what you're seeing. The easiest to David> deal with is when the agent overview gets out of sync and reports the David> existence of messages that are gone. > I suspect that actually might be the problem. I'll try regenerating > the .overview file next time. I actually thought this problem had > been fixed as well (in fact, a long time ago I reported that the > .overview files got to be huge because duplicate information was being > entered into them, but that may have been a separate bug because that > was fixed by Lars) I still get warnings during expiry that my overview either has information about a non-existing message or is missing info about an existing one and the recommendation to run gnus-agent-regenerate. So the bug may not be fixed, but there's code added to detect it. David> The more difficult problem is when messages expired from the David> server don't get expired from the agent. This might have been David> fixed, though. About a month or two ago I got fed up, deleted David> my entire agent hierarchy and started afresh and I haven't had David> that problem since. > Thats the thing. I thought it was supposed to have been fixed too. I think this may be fixed since I've been free of it for so long (used to happen pretty regularly). However, the fix may only be good for dealing with new messages. If you have messages in your agent that were downloaded before the fix was committed they may not be dealt with. I've had that issue with several bugs I reported in the agent. I went nuts trying to figure out why the fix worked for Kevin but not for me. As soon as I would delete my agent directory and let the agent rebuild it, the positive effects of the fix would be realized. -- Dave Goldberg david.goldberg6@verizon.net