Solr FTS - message deletes not working as expected

[Michael Slusarz]

Have you tried another client?

Thunderbird does NOT necessarily process expunges immediately.  Depends on what else it is doing in the background.  So you can't click delete in the UI and not immediately see anything on the backend and definitively correlate the two.

Another option is to ensure debug logging is enabled for Dovecot so you can see what the FTS code is doing.  "log_debug = category=fts" and/or "mail_debug = yes" will help in that regard.

michael


> On 11/02/2021 9:16 AM Shawn Heisey <elyograg at elyograg.org> wrote:
> 
>  
> On 10/28/21 8:00 AM, Shawn Heisey wrote:
> > Also, when I send a message with Thunderbird, which deletes the 
> > message in Drafts and adds one to Sent, I am not seeing a delete 
> > request in the Solr log.  I do see the add. So this isn't limited to 
> > just the shift-delete workflow. 
> 
> 
> I have confirmed this with multiple attempts.
> 
> I start a new message in Thunderbird.  Then I wait around for that 
> message to be auto-saved to Drafts.  When that happens, I see an "add" 
> request in the solr log.
> 
> Then I send the message.  At that point, I see another add in Solr's 
> log.  Based on the message number in the add request, I know that this 
> time the add happens in the Sent folder.  But despite the fact that 
> Thunderbird deletes the message from Drafts, Solr never sees a delete 
> request.  My dovecot version has been updated since the last time I 
> indicated what version it is.  Now it is "2:2.3.17-3+ubuntu20.04" from 
> the dovecot repo, not the ubuntu repo.  The same thing happened with 2.3.16.
> 
> As I mentioned in the first message on this thread, when shift-delete is 
> used in Thunderbird to delete messages, that also never sends a delete 
> to Solr.
> 
> Something somewhere is misbehaving.  Is it Thunderbird accessing IMAP 
> incorrectly, or is it Dovecot?
> 
> I will do a packet capture to see if maybe dovecot is sending requests 
> that are not logged by Solr.  That seems unlikely -- even bad requests 
> should result in some kind of entry in the solr log.
> 
> Thanks,
> Shawn