Re: mail_ping issue with Exchange 2007

It would probably be more useful if you set OP_DEBUG in your mail_open() 
calls and collect the mm_dlog() events; this will show a protocol 
telemetry of what the server is actually doing.

With that in mind, I agree that this seems to be bad behavior on the part 
of the server and your surmises appear correct.  There isn't much that you 
can do other than work around the problem.  As far as I can tell, c-client 
is performing correctly.

On Thu, 1 May 2008, Patrick Hamel (path) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This might be a really specific one; looking for guidelines on doing the
> right thing with the API c-client offers.
>
> Here's the setup:
>    o Server: Exchange 2007, with IMAP ports enabled
>    o Client #1: simplistic client implementation using c-client (I'll
> give you a better idea in later)
>    o Client #2: MAPI client
>
> I have single AND new (un-seen) message in the inbox mailbox and
> everyone is happy.
>
> The c-client based client does a simple:
>
> - mail_ping(stream)
> - loop from 1 to stream->nmsgs
>  mail_uid( msgno )  <-- from the loop iterator
>  decide to "do nothing" or "get details"  on the message
> - done
>
> Now when the message is opened by the MAPI client, the next time the
> c-client client goes through the motion I see this:
>
> - mail_ping(stream)
> ** At this point:
>  -> trace shows callback mm_exists gets called; did not see that in
> other iteration; trace is:: msg [1] exists mailbox
>  -> trace shows callback mm_expunged  gets called; did not see that in
> other iteration; trace is:: expunge msg [1]
>
> ** At this point
>  -> stream->nmsgs == 0
> - loop ... is skipped
>
>> From this point stream->nmsgs stays == 0.
> and I flush the list a message since nmsgs == 0 ...
>
>
>> From what I gathered, Exchange 2007 will expunge the message when
> attributes are changed and assign a new UID to the message in the
> mailbox.
> I'm pretty sure I'm missing an important piece to have the stream->nmsgs
> value refresh to "1";
>
> I mean outside of  "mail_close_full" and a new "mail_open" how would one
> break that cycle?
> NOTE:: Have not tried mail_close<->mail_open yet, (it's a guess) I'm
> looking for a better solution; or guidance that that's the way to go.
>
> Other Exchange version this works nicely with this simplistic approach.
>
> Oh yeah, using imap 2007 from last October-December.
>
> Thank,
>
> PatH
>
>

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
_______________________________________________
Imap-uw mailing list
Imap-uw <at> u.washington.edu
https://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-uw