[imapfilter-devel] IMAPFilter 2.0.1

[Lefteris Chatzimparmpas]

Hans-Werner Hilse wrote:
> The new version of imapfilter was great, thanks a lot. But I ran into a
> problem which might hit others as well.
> 
> The problem is that the message cache for a mailbox is not invalidated
> when changes are being made. I found I had to disable caching
> alltogether in order to have it working correctly.
> 
> Since I'm also doing spam detection, I'm fetching the messages from the
> INBOX, then I'm piping it through SpamAssassin and then I run my own
> filters, not using IMAP search (since I already have the message).
> Depending on the result, I'm moving the message out of the way to the
> according "target" mailbox. At that point, the message text cache isn't
> invalidated, so if I'm doing another search and a following fetch for
> message #1, it would result in operating on the cached content from the
> former message #1, which I have moved.

Hello,

This should not happen, because from version 2.0 imapfilter uses only
UIDs (there is an option to disable them but this is to be used only
during development, the options.uid has been removed from the
documentation).  Using UIDs means that each message has a unique ID
inside each mailbox, as described here:

   A 32-bit value assigned to each message, which when used with the
   unique identifier validity value (see below) forms a 64-bit value
   that MUST NOT refer to any other message in the mailbox or any
   subsequent mailbox with the same name forever.  Unique identifiers
   are assigned in a strictly ascending fashion in the mailbox; as each
   message is added to the mailbox it is assigned a higher UID than the
   message(s) which were added previously.  Unlike message sequence
   numbers, unique identifiers are not necessarily contiguous.

Maybe something else is happening in your case, but there is a chance
you have options.uid set to false (just my guess)... I guess I should
rename this hidden option, because it could cause problems from
imapfilter 1.x left-overs...

If something else is causing this problem, I would really like to know
about it, so I'm waiting for more feedback...

L.