mail dates in preview bugging in mail.app

Getting bit frustrated how mail.app treats dbmail imap
server...

For some reason, if mail comes thru certain smtp servers,
the dates on 
mail.app get screwed, showing in the preview pane that all
messages are 
dated in 2106...

But only if the mail has already been marked as 'read' (as
in, read from 
another application before opening mail.app)

If the mail appears in the inbox as unread, the date will
show 
correctly. Although, if I then (after reading the mail)
choose to 
rebuild the local imap cache, the dates shift to 2106 in the
preview pane.

Any good hints how should I start debugging this?

I already looked at trace 5 output of dbmail-smtp but there
were no 
differences in the headers as far as I can tell.

-- 
br,
Tommi
_______________________________________________
Dbmail mailing list
Dbmaildbmail.org
htt
ps://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail

Tommi Lätti wrote:
> Getting bit frustrated how mail.app treats dbmail imap
server...
> 
> For some reason, if mail comes thru certain smtp
servers, the dates on
> mail.app get screwed, showing in the preview pane that
all messages are
> dated in 2106...
> 
> But only if the mail has already been marked as 'read'
(as in, read from
> another application before opening mail.app)
> 
> If the mail appears in the inbox as unread, the date
will show
> correctly. Although, if I then (after reading the mail)
choose to
> rebuild the local imap cache, the dates shift to 2106
in the preview pane.
> 
> Any good hints how should I start debugging this?
> 
> I already looked at trace 5 output of dbmail-smtp but
there were no
> differences in the headers as far as I can tell.

You need the actual command/reponse trace, not the possibly
precooked version in
syslog. Try ethereal and find the differences. That's what I
use when protocol
issues are involved. Ethereal gives you great drilldown
capability tracing off
the wire.

Before you do though: confirm it's still a problem in 2.1.
If it's still there
in 2.1 please file a bug. Or a patch!


-- 
 
____________________________________________________________
____
  Paul Stevens                                 
mailto:paulnfg.nl
  NET FACILITIES GROUP                     PGP: finger
paulnfg.nl
  The Netherlands________________________________http://www.nfg.nl
_______________________________________________
Dbmail mailing list
Dbmaildbmail.org
htt
ps://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail

Paul J Stevens wrote:
> Before you do though: confirm it's still a problem in
2.1. If it's still there
> in 2.1 please file a bug. Or a patch!

Hmm yes I could run a separate imapd from 2.1 on different
port just for 
testing...

I understand that upgrading the 2.0 db to 2.1 doesn't affect
the 2.0 
functionality since it doesn't use the new tables yes?

-- 
br,
Tommi
_______________________________________________
Dbmail mailing list
Dbmaildbmail.org
htt
ps://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail

Tommi Lätti wrote:
> Paul J Stevens wrote:
> 
>> Before you do though: confirm it's still a problem
in 2.1. If it's
>> still there
>> in 2.1 please file a bug. Or a patch!
> 
> 
> Hmm yes I could run a separate imapd from 2.1 on
different port just for
> testing...
> 
> I understand that upgrading the 2.0 db to 2.1 doesn't
affect the 2.0
> functionality since it doesn't use the new tables yes?

Indeed. 2.1 requires and uses a set of new tables. 2.0 will
run just
fine on a 2.1 database.


-- 
 
____________________________________________________________
____
  Paul Stevens                                      paul at
nfg.nl
  NET FACILITIES GROUP                     GPG/PGP:
1024D/11F8CD31
  The Netherlands________________________________http://www.nfg.nl
_______________________________________________
Dbmail mailing list
Dbmaildbmail.org
htt
ps://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail

Paul J Stevens wrote:
> Tommi Lätti wrote:
>> Paul J Stevens wrote:
>>
>>> Before you do though: confirm it's still a
problem in 2.1. If it's
>>> still there
>>> in 2.1 please file a bug. Or a patch!
>>
>> Hmm yes I could run a separate imapd from 2.1 on
different port just for
>> testing...
>>
>> I understand that upgrading the 2.0 db to 2.1
doesn't affect the 2.0
>> functionality since it doesn't use the new tables
yes?
> 
> Indeed. 2.1 requires and uses a set of new tables. 2.0
will run just
> fine on a 2.1 database.

I actually have some news.

I upgraded to the 2.0.9 since the bug in 2.0.8 was
squashed... and 
magically the dates in mail.app started working, in a way.

So when I choose to rebuild the mailbox (from mail.app), the
correct 
dates are displayed, but only up to 7th of September 2005
.

So if the mail was older than that, the date in preview
window is that.

I wonder what changed between .0.7 and .0.9 to cause this?


-- 
br,
Tommi
_______________________________________________
Dbmail mailing list
Dbmaildbmail.org
htt
ps://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail

On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 02:06:02PM +0900, Tommi L?tti wrote:
> I actually have some news.
> 
> I upgraded to the 2.0.9 since the bug in 2.0.8 was
squashed... and 
> magically the dates in mail.app started working, in a
way.
> 
> So when I choose to rebuild the mailbox (from
mail.app), the correct 
> dates are displayed, but only up to 7th of September
2005 .
> 
> So if the mail was older than that, the date in preview
window is that.
> 
> I wonder what changed between .0.7 and .0.9 to cause
this? 

There are some time structures initialized more explicitly
in imaputil.c -- 
perphaps this helps?

Matt
_______________________________________________
Dbmail mailing list
Dbmaildbmail.org
htt
ps://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail