[spambayes-bugs] [ spambayes-Bugs-1023797 ] Imapfilter fails:
'Cannot find saved message'
SourceForge.net
noreply at sourceforge.net
Wed Oct 13 23:16:45 CEST 2004
Bugs item #1023797, was opened at 2004-09-07 11:18
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by jmgilligan
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=498103&aid=1023797&group_id=61702
Category: imapfilter
Group: Source code - CVS
Status: Open
Resolution: None
>Priority: 2
Submitted By: Jonathan M. Gilligan (jmgilligan)
Assigned to: Tony Meyer (anadelonbrin)
Summary: Imapfilter fails: 'Cannot find saved message'
Initial Comment:
sb_imapfilter.py fails intermittently, but frequently,
with the error:
__main__.BadIMAPResponseError: The
command 'Cannot find saved message' failed to give an
OK response.
Rerunning the filter produces this error, but different
amounts of processing occur before I get the error. For
what it's worth, my email client (mulberry) reports that
it frequently spends as much as 90 seconds waiting for
a response from the server, so perhaps this is a timeout
problem.
I'm running the latest spambayes checked out from
CVS using python 2.3.4 under Windows 2000 (Python
2.3.4 (#53, Aug 23 2004, 16:24:32) [MSC v.1310 32
bit (Intel)] on win32).
The server welcome is:
'* OK imap1 Cyrus IMAP4 v2.0.16 server ready'
The server capabilties is:
('IMAP4', 'IMAP4REV1', 'ACL', 'QUOTA', 'LITERAL+', 'NA
MESPACE', 'UIDPLUS', 'ID',
'NO_ATOMIC_RENAME', 'UNSELECT', 'MULTIAPPEND', 'S
ORT', 'THREAD=ORDEREDSUBJECT',
'THREAD=REFERENCES', 'IDLE', 'STARTTLS', 'AUTH=PL
AIN', 'X-NETSCAPE')
Attached is the output from sb_imapfilter -v -t -c -i 4
where the exception occurs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Comment By: Jonathan M. Gilligan (jmgilligan)
Date: 2004-10-13 16:16
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=11595
I have been testing this for over a week with very few
problems. I have gone from several failures per hour to less
than one failure per day on average.
sjoerd's fix (rev. 1.40) seems to have made a lot of
difference. Things are currently stable enough for me to be
happy downgrading the severity of the bug. It's not quite
perfectly fixed, but it's good enough for me to use regularly
on my production system.
I'll leave it up to Tony to decide whether this is sufficient to
declare the bug closed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Jonathan M. Gilligan (jmgilligan)
Date: 2004-10-04 16:01
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=11595
Revision 1.40 (by sjoerd) to manage illegal values in the
Message-Id, seems to fix this. I am currently testing and will
report back on whether this really solves the problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Jonathan M. Gilligan (jmgilligan)
Date: 2004-09-30 10:41
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=11595
I have increased the range in line 548 to 10000 or even
100000, and it doesn't solve the problem.
I even inserted an increasing time.sleep():
for i in xrange(11):
....
time.sleep(1 << i)
and I still get crashes, so just increasing the number of
noops or waiting longer doesn't seem to solve the problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Tony Meyer (anadelonbrin)
Date: 2004-09-29 22:12
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=552329
(Apologies for not getting to this yesterday)
Could you try making a change to your copy of
sb_imapfitler.py for me?
Line 548 is " for i in xrange(100):". Could you try
increasing the 100 to 10000 and seeing if that solves the
problem? (It may run for a long time before it finally
quits, if it doesn't fix it - but it's just no-op'ing, so it
doesn't hurt).
I suspect it is related to a timeout sort of problem - maybe
the server is slow and so it's taking a long time to
register that the new message is there. I guessed that 100
no-ops would be enough, but perhaps it isn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Tony Meyer (anadelonbrin)
Date: 2004-09-27 02:24
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=552329
Apologies for the delay in getting to this (I've been overseas).
This code is quite significantly changed (for the better, in
theory) than the 1.0 sb_imapfilter, so hasn't been as widely
tested. Your server isn't giving up the EXISTS response
that's expected or in the expected way, so something's
falling apart.
I'll try and find time to have a proper look at this
tomorrow. Note that you ought to be able to fall back to
the 1.0 imapfilter if necessary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=498103&aid=1023797&group_id=61702
More information about the Spambayes-bugs
mailing list