Indeed, it's back now (with a new, high U=nnn). Thanks!
If the original issue ever crops again, I'll make sure to investigate
deeper.
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:16 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen <
oswald.buddenha...@gmx.de> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 11:48:58AM +0200, Seb Frank wrote:
> > It turns out the message wasn't synced back to the remote side
> >
> that *really* shouldn't happen unless you configured a message size
> limit.
>
> if mbsync did think it synced something but didn't actually do it, it
> would subsequently notice that the message is missing on the other side
> and would conclude a deletion, which it would propagate. so your
> original message would get deleted - you wouldn't just have an
> unpropagated message lingering around.
>
> a somewhat plausible explanation would be that the message in question
> appeared in the box with a UID which is below the recorded UID which was
> already seen (and is assumed to have been propagated). that could happen
> if you moved the message from another folder without renaming the file
> at the same time.
>
> > Is there a way to get mbsync to recognise the message again and sync
> it
> > back to the server?
> >
> if the last hypothesis is correct, edit out the ,U=nnn part from the
> message's file name.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> 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
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
