bug#35443: 27.0.50; Gnus (nnimap) shows "ghost" messages in summary buffer

[Eric Abrahamsen]

On 06/23/19 14:13 PM, Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote:
> Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net> writes:
>
>> No I didn't! I looked at it for a while, had an internal conflict about
>> just dropping the lines vs actually doing something with them, imagined
>> all the work that would go into a more fully-featured parser, then got
>> distracted and forgot about it.
>
> OK, I'll take a look at it...
>
>> I still hope that in some distant future we could have a real parser
>> consuming these buffers. So far as I know the only in-emacs options are
>> in cedet -- wisent and the other one -- but I've never been able to make
>> them work. And now it sounds like cedet might not even stay in-tree?
>
> I had to add a parsing feature to wisent, and that was kinda more
> painful than you'd expect.  :-/

Oh, I thought that was most of the point of wisent to begin with. No
wonder I couldn't get it to do anything. In theory, do you have any
recommendations in the parsing direction.

> But I haven't heard anything about dumping cedet from the tree. Is that
> the plan?

No, I was skimming your threads about cleaning up the build process and
got the impression that it was unmaintained. I probably misinterpreted.

On 06/23/19 14:23 PM, Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote:
> Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net> writes:
>
>>> Did you get any further in fixing this nnimap parsing bug?
>>
>> Here's a whack at it. I tried to make sure that it would handle unwanted
>> FETCH responses whether they came before or after (or in the middle of)
>> the wanted FETCH responses, but I'm not in love with checking the header
>> regexp this way.
>
> Well, I think it's OK...

Cool.

>> Because this IMAP server feature is very closely focused on adding a
>> flag in case of attachment (and because Gnus never explicitly requests
>> this flag, though I'd sure like to in the future), another more targeted
>> approach would be to simply delete any lines containing
>> $Has\(No\)?Attachment, assuming that these FETCH responses will only
>> take up one line.
>
> That sounds a bit brittle -- I'm sure there'll be other extensions like
> this in the future to the IMAP protocol.

Sure, I'll stick with this.