At 8:51 AM -0400 3/11/08, Andy Dills wrote:
We recently switched to atmail, as well as dovecot. I noticed in atmail
the size of the mailboxes was always reported as 0kb.
So, I did some debugging, and it boiled down to the fact that the regular
expression used by dovecot expected UID before SIZE,
I assume you meant to say 'atmail' there and not 'dovecot'
but Dovecot returned
SIZE before UID. No biggy, I changed the regex, but I was curious if there
was a standard.
Yes, IMAP4[rev1] is an explicitly defined protocol, not a mix of
specification and traditions (for a contrast, see NNTP.) The
versioning is a bit weird, but all 3 RFC's specifying IMAP4 and
IMAP4rev1 published in 1994, 1996, and 2003 agree on this issue. This
is a goofy piece of the IMAP4 spec, but it isn't really unclear and
even someone coding to the examples in the RFC's would not make the
error you are seeing in atmail.
RFC3501, like RFC2060 and RFC1730 before it, does not specify any
ordering to the parts of a FETCH response type, and the example of a
response given for a UID FETCH command in both RFC's has the UID as
the last field. RFC3501 also points implementors to RFC2683, in which
section 3.4.4 explicitly warns client authors to not rely on any
particular order or structure in a FETCH response more restrictive
than the specification, and points out just how variable a FETCH
response can be. Any IMAP software that depends on an IMAP server
answering with fields in a particular order would seem to be written
by someone who had not bothered with a serious reading of the
specifications of the protocol or looked at the implementation
hints/warnings pointed to by the full specification.
Here's the imap query that is sent:
UID FETCH 1:* (RFC822.SIZE)
Here's the diff I implemented to make it work:
http://www.xecu.net/atmail/dovecot_sizes.diff
So...is this something that is standard or something atmail needs to
handle by making their regex more dynamic?
As Timo pointed out, a regular expression is a poor choice for
parsing an IMAP FETCH response to a UID FETCH command. I'm not sure
that it is formally impossible for all RE flavors and certainly not
for that specific UID FETCH command, but the style used in the code
you have patched, with hard-coded field names, is extremely unwise.
The FETCH response format is rigorously defined and is parseable, but
the right approach would be to decompose the response structurally
into name/value pairs rather than look for specific names in a
particular order.
--
Bill Cole
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
