Le 29/04/2017 à 13:02, Oswald Buddenhagen a écrit :
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 03:20:45PM +0200, Florian Lombard wrote:
>> Here are the patch I worked on when having sync issues with Exchange
>> (online).
>>
> thanks. i'm not going to apply any part of this patch verbatim, but some
> parts of it are worth serious consideration, and somebody may feel
> adventurous enough to use your changes as-is.
You're welcome. I know this is not production level code (either by the
way I did it or with the liberties I took with standards ;) )
>> Common cfg section:
>>
>> * Either skip or fix messages with lines more than xxx bytes
>> (typically no more than 9900 bytes with exchange)
>> MaxLineLength xxx (in bytes)
>> CutLongLines yes|no (fix or skip message)
> as mentioned before, i'm concerned about the "sledge hammer" approach of
> hard-cutting the lines, because that falsifies the messages' content,
> which may very well render them unreadable (if it's not plain text).
Well you have the choice of just skipping them to allow the sync to
complete if you're concerned about the messages integrity
> meanwhile i found that this should at least not invalidate possibly
> present signatures, simply because the respective standards require
> complete normalization of the contents before signing - specifically to
> avoid the problem.
>
> still, a cleaner approach would be encapsulating the message in a MIME
> structure. i found in the imapsync FAQ that "reformime -r7" would do
> that (i'm not suggesting to use that, but it should serve as a good
> example).
I had a look at that, and found that completely overkill for my usage
(see below)
> i'd be interested in samples of such messages with excessively long
> lines to assess what the "target audience" actually is. i would expect
> that messages which already are MIME-encoded would not have this
> problem. but then, a sloppily encoded multipart text+html mail could
> very well be broken as well.
100% of those messages where having bad html code without line breaks
Non binary attachments where always correctly line wrapped.
It was either poorly done html signatures or even javascript (yeah,
inside an email !)
So I wasn't worried about the integrity of those messages, which where
already breaking the rules, but I needed the contents (messages from
customers we needed to keep)
>> * Allow to rescan all mails from a folder, ignoring the last sync
>> latest message pulled (usefull when playing with my new settings)
>> IgnoreMaxPulledUid yes|no
> that seems to be overkill to me given that it's a workaround and can be
> easily achieved by hacking the sync state files, for example by sed'ing
> them.
> i suppose you implemented this to resume syncing after implementing the
> line length workaround?
Yes it was mainly a flag I used for debugging (editing hundreds of sync
state files wasn't an option)
>> * Skip messages with raw binary content (bytes < 0x20 except CR/LF/TAB)
>> SkipBinaryContent yes|no
> i know that i suggested that this might be a problem, but i don't
> remember whether you reported actual instances of that.
> anyway, the treatment should be the same as for messages with excesively
> long lines - MIME-encoding (presumably as quoted-printable).
Those where bogus messages with the raw attachment in binary but with
base 64 headers correctly set.
Near 100% (if not 100%) of those where in the sent folder and are
probably the result of gmail + buggy email client (but you can still
open the attachment with gmail !)
>> * Allow to delete non empty folders on slave (when you are sure about
>> what you're doing)
>> DeleteNonEmpty yes|no
> i'll consider this.
> my biggest concern is that some transient error would falsify the
> mailbox list and thus cause the folders to be nuked. similary, a
> permanent change in the server configuration would have that effect.
> arguably, either wouldn't be so bad as such, as it would destroy only
> the replica. however, it would be important to verify that the replica
> does not contain any unpropagated mails (as opposed to any mails at all,
> as is done currently).
Well, when you are sure about your settings, this can be usefull, as my
users where renaming folders while I was working on the sync
At start I was logging to the mailbox, deleted the folder, and syncing
again.
>> Drivers cfg section (imap only):
>>
>> * Suppress Keyword not supported warnings
>> IgnoreKeywordWarnings yes|no
>>
> i wonder why a server would bleat about not supporting an optional
> feature when it can (and probably does) announce that in a "civilized"
> way, too. did these responses appear to be correlated with specific
> messages, or did they always come when opening any mailbox?
Well, "exchange online", that sums it all ...
Tied to specific messages, I guess it happened when there was a word
between bracket in the message subject (no debug log of that)
Happends only one time, when the message is synced.
A rather ugly hack, but I needed clean logs to spot errors.
>> diff --git a/src/drv_imap.c b/src/drv_imap.c
>> index e24c7d8..10da0cb 100644
>> --- a/src/drv_imap.c
>> +++ b/src/drv_imap.c
>> @@ -1416,6 +1419,16 @@ imap_socket_read( void *aux )
>> resp = RESP_NO;
>> if (cmdp->param.failok)
>> goto doresp;
>> + } else if (!strcmp( "BAD", arg )) {
>> + resp = RESP_NO;
>> + warn( "Warning: IMAP command '%s' returned
>> an error: %s %s\n",
>> + starts_with( cmdp->cmd, -1, "LOGIN",
>> 5 ) ?
>> + "LOGIN <user> <pass>" :
>> + starts_with( cmdp->cmd, -1,
>> "AUTHENTICATE PLAIN", 18 ) ?
>> + "AUTHENTICATE PLAIN
>> <authdata>" :
>> + cmdp->cmd,
>> + arg, cmd ? cmd : "" );
>> + goto doresp;
>> } else /*if (!strcmp( "BAD", arg ))*/
>> resp = RESP_CANCEL;
>>
> this hunk downgrades tagged BAD responses to warnings and suppresses the
> subsequent client-side connection drop.
> this doesn't seem like a terribly good idea to me - this server response
> indicates that the client (allegedly) did something wrong. that may mean
> that the subsequent command stream will be interpreted as garbage, which
> may have unpredictable effects. it just isn't safe to continue at this
> point.
> i suppose you implemented this as a workaround before you identified the
> line length issue?
I implemented that before the binary content issue
It's exchange which is breaking all the rules that "forced" me to do
that to sync most of the messages
Cutting the connexion instead of reporting the right error is not the
right thing to do, but that's what exchange does (with Error 10 or 11,
but with BAD reponse)
Hope this helped
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
isync-devel mailing list
isync-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/isync-devel
