I am implementing an IMAP client.
I think IMAP servers MUST send responses in order but I failed to find any mention about it in the IMAP specification.
Is it guaranteed by the specification? Or do I need to prepare to accept unordered responses from IMAP server?
IMAP servers are not required to answer in any particular order. There are some restrictions:
an tagged response comes after all untagged responses that were caused by the same command
OK [CLOSED] has to come after all untagged responses relating to that mailbox
if a client's commands would otherwise be ambiguous, then the server must process then in the order received
There may be more, but I can't think of any right now. Notably, the server is not required to send * FETCH... in any particular order.
IMAP servers are neither required to send responses in order, nor they seem to be required to send the parts of a FETCH response in the same order as requested. Notably googles mail server might reorder the parts, that is if you request BODY[1.MIME] followed by BODY[1] it might return you the parts in a different order inside the fetch response.
Related
I have a server with a number of clients and each client is able to ask the server for information about the other clients. If they do so, the server have to get the information from each client and then return it to the asking client.
If two clients does this request at the same time, a deadlock might appear. The thing is that this request is done so often that the client would not have to care if it sometimes fails. How do I just ignore the timeout message that terminates everything when this problem appear?
Strict answer to your question
If you're using gen_server, then call/3 allows you to specify a timeout (and call/2 defaults to 5 seconds).
This code will either give you the gen_server's reply or the atom timeout if it failed.
Result = try gen_server:call(Target, Message, Timeout) of
Reply ->
Reply
catch
exit:{timeout, _} ->
timeout
end.
Better answer
evnu and rvirding recommended using asynchronous calls, which is a superior technique. Here are two possible ways to do this:
1. Server stores the data
Have clients periodically gen_server:cast/2 to the server to tell it their information. The server stores the latest information about each client. When a client wants to learn about its siblings, it calls gen_server:call/2 to the server.
The server call is synchronous because it doesn't need to contact any client; it's just returning the cached values.
2. Async return
The clients call gen_server:cast/2 to request data from the server. The server calls gen_server:call/2 to fetch data from each client on demand. Once the server has collected all data, it calls gen_server:cast/2 to pass the collected data back to the client that requested it.
Here, the clients are always waiting to handle requests from the server. The server calls the client synchronously, but can't deadlock because there is only one server.
3. More gen_servers
This one's hard to describe without knowing more about your code, but you could break the clients into more pieces. One piece to handle data requests and another piece to generate the requests.
Based on your description that the clients make this data request "so often", I think you should try the first method. If your clients are requesting data frequently enough, having the server collect and cache the client information will actually result in fresher data for the clients.
I'm trying to implement a webmail in PHP. I would like to write a PHP CLI script which is run on every email arrival to store some parts of (not all of) incoming email into database for search purposes. Then when the user finished searching and chose an email to show, a connection is made to mail server to retrieve the complete email. In order to implement this scenario I need to make some sort of connection among emails within database and mail server.
Since my knowledge of working with mail servers is limited to Zend Framework's API, what I believe I need in order to retrieve an email from an IMAP server is a message number or a message unique id (this later one seems not to be supported by all mail servers).
To this point, I've managed to find .forward (and some other ways) to introduce my PHP CLI script to MTAs to be run on every email arrival. This way I can store emails to database. But this won't do since message unique id is created by MDA so MTA do not know of it and they can not provide it to me. This means I can not find emails later when I want to retrieve them from mail server.
At last, here's my question: Is there a way to introduce a PHP CLI script to a MDA for emails' arrival? If this is dependent on the mail server, which servers do support this and how? My personal choice would be Dovecot or Courier, but any other mail server would do as well.
This is tricky -- there are many ways on how to setup delivery. Some of them work with the underlying mail store directly, bypassing your IMAP server altogether, while others use e.g. Dovecot's facilities.
Have you considered building on top of the notify plugin which ships with Dovecot?
It seems like it's impossible to introduce such a PHP CLI script to IMAP server (at least I'm sure of Dovecot). Anyway, the work around I found for this problem is to use my own PHP script to insert the new mails into IMAP server and retrieve their id's and then store the id in database for future references. To be clear, email are given to my PHP CLI script by MTA, not MDA. As I said before this is done easily using .forward file.
[UPDATE]
Unfortunately it seems this solution can not be implemented as well. The way to insert a new email to IMAP server is APPEND command, and to have the UID of the recently added mail server must support UIDPLUS extension. Neither Dovecot nor Courier supports this extension at the moment! If they did it seems the server would return the UID with a APPENDUID response.
[UPDATE]
It is my bad since Courier does support UIDPLUS. So this solution is valid and the one I'm going to implement.
Let's assume we have a client/server interaction happening over unreliable network (packet drop). A client is calling server's RESTful api (over http over tcp):
issuing a POST to http://server.com/products
server is creating an object of "product" resource (persists it to a database, etc)
server is returning 201 Created with a Location header of "http://server.com/products/12345"
! TCP packet containing an http response gets dropped and eventually this leads to a tcp connection reset
I see the following problem: the client will never get an ID of a newly created resource yet the server will have a resource created.
Questions: Is this application level behavior or should framework take care of that? How should a web framework (and Rails in particular) handle a situation like that? Are there any articles/whitepapers on REST for this topic?
The client will receive an error when the server does not respond to the POST. The client would then normally re-issue the request as they assume that it has failed. Off the top of my head I can think of two approaches to this problem.
One is that the client can generate some kind of request identifier, such as a guid, which it includes in the request. If the server receives a POST request with a duplicate GUID then it can refuse it.
The other approach is to PUT instead of POST to create. If you cannot get the client to generate the URI then you can ask the server to provide a new URI with a GET and then do a PUT to that URI.
If you search for something like "make POST idempotent" you will probably find a bunch of other suggestions on how to do this.
If it isn't reasonable for duplicate resources to be created (e.g. products with identical titles, descriptions, etc.), then unique identifiers can be generated on the server which can be tracked against created resources to prevent duplicate requests from being processed. Unlike Darrel's suggestion of generating unique IDs on the client, this would also prevent separate users from creating duplicate resources (which you may or may not find desirable). Clients will be able to distinguish between "created" responses and "duplicate" responses by their response codes (201 and 303 respectively, in my example below).
Pseudocode for generating such an identifier — in this case, a hash of a canonical representation of the request:
func product_POST
// the canonical representation need not contain every field in
// the request, just those which contribute to its "identity"
tags = join sorted request.tags
canonical = join [request.name, request.maker, tags, request.desc]
id = hash canonical
if id in products
http303 products[id]
else
products[id] = create_product_from request
http201 products[id]
end
end
This ID may or may not be part of the created resources' URIs. Personally, I'd be inclined to track them separately — at the cost of an extra lookup table — if the URIs were going to be exposed to users, as hashes tend to be ugly and difficult for humans to remember.
In many cases, it also makes sense to "expire" these unique hashes after some time. For example, if you were to make a money transfer API, a user transferring the same amount of money to the same person a few minutes apart probably indicates that the client never received the "success" response. If a user transfers the same amount of money to the same person once a month, on the other hand, they're probably paying their rent. ;-)
The problem as you describe it boils down to avoiding what are called double-adds. As mentioned by others, you need to make your posts idempotent.
This can be easily implemented at the framework level. The framework can keep a cache of completed responses. The requests have to have a request unique so that any retries are treated as such, and not as new requests.
If the successful response gets lost on its way to the client, the client will retry with the same request unique, the server will then respond with its cached response.
You are left with durability of the cache, how long to keep responses, etc. One approach is to remove responses from the server cache after a given period of time, this will depend on your app domain and traffic and can be left as a configurable step on the framework piece. Another approach is to force the client to sent acknowledgements. The acks can be sent either as separate requests (note that these could be lost too), or as extra data piggy backed on real requests.
Although what I suggest is similar to what others suggest, I strongly encourage you to keep this layer of network resiliency to do only that, deal with drop requests/responses and not allow it to deal with duplicate resources from separate requests which is an application level task. Merging both pieces will mush all functionality and will not leave you with a clear separation of responsibilities.
Not an easy problem, but if you keep it clean you can make your app much more resilient to bad networks without introducing too much complexity.
And for some related experiences by others go here.
Good luck.
As the other responders have pointed out, the basic problem here is that the standard HTTP POST method is not idempotent like the other methods. There is an effort underway to establish a standard for an idempotent POST method known as Post-Once-Exactly, or POE.
Now I'm not saying that this is a perfect solution for everybody in the situation you describe, but if it is the case that you are writing both the server and the client, you may be able to leverage some of the ideas from POE. The draft is here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-nottingham-http-poe-00
It isn't a perfect solution, which is probably why it hasn't really taken off in the six years since the draft was submitted. Some of the problems, and some clever alternate options are discussed here:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/rest-discuss/message/7646
HTTP is a stateless protocol, meaning the server can't open an HTTP connection. All connections get initialized by the client. So you can't solve such an error on the server side.
The only solution I can think of: If you know, which client created the product, you can supply it the products it created, if it pulls that information. If the client never contacts you again, you won't be able to transmit information about the new product.
I would like to create an email client that can access multiple IMAP mailboxes. I'd also like a copy of all emails for processing. What is the best way to do this using IMAP commands?
Right now I have a script that iterates over the folders, FETCHing FLAGS on 1:* to see what's been read and if any previously read messages have been marked as new, then FETCH BODY.PEEK on all of the messages I don't have in my database. Is there a better way?
A better way would be to fetch UIDs of all messages (UID FETCH 1:* FLAGS), compare the resulting UID list with your database and then download any messages you don't have and remove any messages you have but the server doesn't (deleted by other IMAP clients or using a web interface, for example). This is the only reliable method to duplicate an IMAP folder, AFAIK.
(And don't forget to take UIDVALIDITY into account as well!)
Your original method would not work correctly if other IMAP clients were accessing the mailbox in addition to your application. In theory, it would work OK if you can stay connected to the IMAP server continuously, using NOOP and IDLE to check new and deleted messages, but this is never possible in practice - even GMail doesn't have 100% uptime :-)
An ultimate IMAP client would combine both these approaches.
Does IMAP protocol provide any way to validate / verify that complete message was transferred from the server to local client? i.e. is there any equivalent of ETag / MD5 or some other checksum?
The IMAP protocol will tell you how many octets are going to be transfered when you issue the FETCH command. This should enable you to verify the completeness of the message. However, there is no command (AFAIK) that would provide any kind of checksum/hash functionality.