Re: More Duplicate E-mails Outlook 2003 -DRAT!
From: Jeff Stephenson [MSFT] (stephenson_at_online.microsoft.com)
Date: 12/10/04
- Next message: Kevin: "Default Field in the Contact Form"
- Previous message: JT: "Unwanted Pilcron Sign"
- In reply to: jph: "Re: More Duplicate E-mails Outlook 2003 -DRAT!"
- Next in thread: Jeff Stephenson [MSFT]: "Re: More Duplicate E-mails Outlook 2003"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 18:24:13 -0800
You're confusing the Internet Message-Id header with the UID used in the
POP3 protocol. They are not, nor were they ever meant to be, the same
thing, though your ISP's server appears to use part of the Message-Id as
its UID. That is a mistake because, as you found out, you can get multiple
copies of the same message delivered to your mailbox. Those copies have
the same Message-Id, but should *not* have the same UID, or clients that
are configured to leave messages on the server will encounter problems.
Most servers use a hash of the Internet headers to generate a UID, rather
than a truncation of Message-Id (this is actaully the first time I've ever
heard of a server doing what yours does).
You did mention in passing that some messages were never downloaded. I've
never known Outlook to do this - could you post a logfile from such an
instance?
And regardless of what you think, there was indeed a conscious decision to
pick what I (and others) considered to be the lesser of two evils in
dealing with broken mail servers.
-- Jeff Stephenson Outlook Development This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 15:05:02 -0800, jph wrote: > As I said before and I will say again, I realize this is primarily a > server issue. > > However, the UIDs are not identical, they only appear identical when > they are incorrectly truncated in the response to the UIDL command (they > are fully available and correct in the headers of the messages.) This > COULD be handled if it was watched for as a potential problem on the > server end. (If UIDs match in the UIDL list, check the full headers.) > Again, I am suggesting you could improve the world by creating a > workaround, I am not suggesting this is all your fault. > > Also, if you read in detail, you would see that I am experiencing BOTH > problems. Some messages are so completely ignored that I never see them > (in Outlook), and others are re-downloaded every time. So please don't > make it sound like there was a conscious decision to improve upon how > Express handles the situation. If the processes are diferent, Outlook > 2003's method is not better, and probably does not intentionally address > this issue at all. > > "Jeff Stephenson [MSFT]" wrote: > >> Sigh. As I said before and I'll say again, there is nothing a client >> can do to deal with this problem if it's been configured to leave >> messages on the server. >> >> A client configured to download and delete all messages will be able to >> handle this, because it doesn't have to distinguish one message from >> another on the server. >> >> The only way that a client can distinguish one message on the server >> from another, though, is through the UID, so if the server assigns the >> same UID to multiple messages there's no way for a client to tell one >> from another. >> >> Outlook Express handles this without duplicates by never even showing >> you the second message with a given UID. And if you delete the *first* >> message with that UID, OE will also delete the *second*, so you'll >> never even know that it existed. We decided that creating duplicates >> of messages was better than never showing them to you at all. >> >> -- >> Jeff Stephenson >> Outlook Development >> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no >> rights >> >> On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 07:21:05 -0800, jph wrote: >> >>> OKOKOK, I goofed again... sorry. >>> >>> In fact this IS a server issue. When I log in to the server using >>> telnet, I get the same list of truncated UIDs when I use the UIDL >>> command, so sometimes they appear identical even when they are not. >>> >>> However, as noted by many users, this must be a problem with many >>> servers, and previous versions of Outlook dealt with it fine. Now that >>> you are aware of the poblem, I am sure the MS brain tust can come up >>> with a workaround on the client side. (perhapse when duplicates are >>> found, the full headers of those messages could be interrogated before >>> any conclusion is made about whether a message is "new" or "old".) >>> >>> I have contacted my hosting company to try to get it dealt with on >>> their server, but honestly this is something Outlook 2003 should be >>> able to deal with, as other clients are able to do, and as previous >>> Outlooks have done. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> "jph" wrote: >>> >>>> Here is the problem. >>>> >>>> Outlook reports: >>>> 2004.12.07 23:13:33 POP3 (mail.ware.com): <rx> +OK 2 messages; msg# and >>>> message ID for undeleted messages: >>>> 2004.12.07 23:13:33 POP3 (mail.ware.com): <rx> 1 >>>> <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAS+7XUNSr0RGuzURFU1QAAM >>>> 2004.12.07 23:13:33 POP3 (mail.ware.com): <rx> 2 >>>> <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAS+7XUNSr0RGuzURFU1QAAM >>>> 2004.12.07 23:13:33 POP3 (mail.ware.com): <rx> . >>>> >>>> >>>> But... the actual POP box data shows those same two messages' UIDs as: >>>> >>>> Message-ID: >>>> >> <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAS+7XUNSr0RGuzURFU1QAAMKAAAAQAAAAnqf2ncoFuEyJSLu5AZ4AUgEAAAAA@ware.com> >>>> >>>> ... >>>> >>>> Message-ID: >>>> >> <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAS+7XUNSr0RGuzURFU1QAAMKAAAAQAAAAOHcZ2jM15ki5GfZvo+h4zQEAAAAA@ware.com> >>>> >>>> >>>> OUTLOOK 2003 TRUNCATES THE MESSAGE UID. That is why SIMILAR UIDs act >>>> identical. This causes two problems, actually... duplicate, infinite >>>> downloads of some messages, AND messages that are never downloaded at >>>> all. >>>> >>>> I have confirmed that this is not a server problem, as other mail >>>> clients correctly receive the entire UID. >>>> >>>> >>>> Now... can we get a fix?! :-) >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> "John F" wrote: >>>> >>>> --snip-- >>>> >>>>>> I've removed all but a single download from the log you posted. >>>>>> Send >> this >>>>>> post to your mail provider and have them contact the vendor of their >> server >>>>>> to see if there is a bug fix for the server. >>> >>> >> > >>>>> > -- >>>>> > Jeff Stephenson >>>>> > Outlook Development >>>>> > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no >> rights >>>>> > >>>>> >>
- Next message: Kevin: "Default Field in the Contact Form"
- Previous message: JT: "Unwanted Pilcron Sign"
- In reply to: jph: "Re: More Duplicate E-mails Outlook 2003 -DRAT!"
- Next in thread: Jeff Stephenson [MSFT]: "Re: More Duplicate E-mails Outlook 2003"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
