Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mac OS 10.9's Mail App — Infinity Times Your Spam

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the that's-a-lot-of-spam dept.

Bug 158

An anonymous reader writes "Email service FastMail.fm has an blog post about an interesting bug they're dealing with related to the new Mail.app in Mac OS 10.9 Mavericks. After finding a user who had 71 messages in his Junk Mail folder that were somehow responsible for over a million entries in the index file, they decided to investigate. 'This morning I checked again, there were nearly a million messages again, so I enabled telemetry on the account ... [Mail.app] copying all the email from the Junk Folder back into the Junk Folder again!. This is legal IMAP, so our server proceeds to create a new copy of each message in the folder. It then expunges the old copies of the messages, but it's happening so often that the current UID on that folder is up to over 3 million. It was just over 2 million a few days ago when I first emailed the user to alert them to the situation, so it's grown by another million since. The only way I can think this escaped QA was that they used a server which (like gmail) automatically suppresses duplicates for all their testing, because this is a massively bad problem.' The actual emails added up to about 2MB of actual disk usage, but the bug generated an additional 2GB of data on top of that."

cancel ×

158 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I guess I have to ask (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45247851)

Why doesn't fastmail also use servers that suppress duplicates?

Re:I guess I have to ask (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45247981)

Why doesn't fastmail also use servers that suppress duplicates?

The guy who approved it sent the approval via email on a Friday evening ... from his Mac. Since the recipient received millions of copies over the weekend he just figured it was spam.

Re:I guess I have to ask (2)

homey of my owney (975234) | about a year ago | (#45248063)

It's certainly not the only bug in 10.9 Mail.

Watch the Mail Activity section when receiving or sending mail. I have no idea what it's counting.

When I receive two emails and it says receiving 415 and 416 of 416 I kinda get concerned.

When sending one, sending 6 of 6... again, what is it counting?

And set up a smart folder that is all Unread mail. Set it up and watch that it's not very smart... Like it really can't tract unread mail at all...

Re:I guess I have to ask (1)

Ford Prefect (8777) | about a year ago | (#45248207)

I'm using Mail.app with Dovecot as the IMAP server - I upgraded to OS X 10.9 a few days ago, and haven't seen anything weird going on (yet). I sent myself a test email a few minutes ago while watching the Mail Activity window, and numbers appeared sensible. dovecot.index and dovecot.index.cache files on the server aren't ballooning - at 178KB and 11MB respectively.

The Fastmail article mentions Cyrus as the IMAP server. Is it Cyrus-specific, or have I simply not been bitten by this yet? (I get loads of spam, but it gets pre-processed by Spamassassin so Mail.app rarely gets to see any in the main inbox itself.)

Re:I guess I have to ask (4, Informative)

immaterial (1520413) | about a year ago | (#45248519)

One of the reasons they noticed the issue is they don't actually delete expunged messages for a week (the blog post says for backup purposes). The Mail bug, for whatever reason, duplicates the junk mail and immediately cleans up after itself by expunging the originals. If the server were actually deleting them it wouldn't be such a critical issue (but an issue nonetheless).

It's also worth noting though that so far, there is only a single report of this, despite the author implying they have a huge number of users. Most likely this isn't something that happens on the average Mail install; it could be that Mail is hitting some error condition on this user's specific account and that is causing the bug to manifest.

Re:I guess I have to ask (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45249493)

Niggers. Yes you, yes you immaterial. To you i say NIGGERS!

Blunders Ahoy! (-1, Offtopic)

mfh (56) | about a year ago | (#45247863)

Your post advocates a

(x) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante

approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)

( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
(x) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(x) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
(x) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

Specifically, your plan fails to account for

( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(x) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
(x) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(x) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
(x) Technically illiterate politicians
(x) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
(x) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
(x) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

(x) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!

Re:Blunders Ahoy! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45247907)

You are a fucking wanker.

Some truths don't require a low ID and a three page checklist.

Re:You are a fucking wanker. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45247987)

Cool troll.

http://i.imgur.com/KOoBDaK.gif [imgur.com]

Re:Blunders Ahoy! (-1, Troll)

rot26 (240034) | about a year ago | (#45248165)

Low ID's don't mean anything any more. They're obviously selling them or giving them to "friends" now. Go find a low ID and check out the history.

Re:Blunders Ahoy! (0)

Paradise Pete (33184) | about a year ago | (#45249343)

Low ID's don't mean anything any more. They're obviously selling them or giving them to "friends" now.

Damn. If I knew they were worth money I'd have signed up sooner. And more often.

Re:Blunders Ahoy! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45250035)

Well, if you're interested, I'm looking to sell mine. Mind you, as you can see in this post's header, my ID is so low, it's not even listed. Wrap your head around that one: It's so low, it does not need numbers!
Of course, I've been posting regularly here on /. (almost on every article ever, in fact - usually multiple times). So, in order to protect my reputation, if we can agree upon a price, I will have to reset my karma so that you don't get that benefit.

If that's acceptable to you, then please contact me. I'll leave no contact details - as a long-time poster here, I'm one of those arrogant folks who feel that if you don't have the skills to find me, you don't get to buy my account.

Good luck,

A.C.

Re:Blunders Ahoy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45247983)

Nobody is advocating an approach to fighting spam here.

Re:Blunders Ahoy! (0)

trackedvehicle (1972844) | about a year ago | (#45249745)

Lame.

that's why I'm waiting (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45247869)

never install mac os X.0

Ohhh do the wittle socialist tummies hurt? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45247881)

It's the most frightening time of year--that heart pounding moment when you spot your open enrollment information lurking in your inbox, rip it open with trembling hands, and scream in horror as your annual premium increase leaps from the envelop and mercilessly feasts upon the insides of your wallet, gnashing and shredding in orgiastic ecstasy until there's nothing left but a handful of pennies and a contemptuously belched up KFC coupon.

Expired, of course.

This terrifying scene will be repeated all across America in the next few weeks.

My own horror show arrived in the mail today. I'll spare you the gory details. Here's the short version: A 25% increase in premiums for the same health coverage I carried last year. For someone on a family plan, that translates into a $1,200 yearly increase.

So congratulations. If you make somewhere around $50,000 a year, then more than your entire after tax annual raise just went to pay for Obamacare. Doesn't that feel FANTASTIC? You're bringing home less this year than you did last year.

And you're one of the lucky ones. See, you have a job. And you got a raise. You're one of life's lottery winners. A one percenter.

Re:Ohhh do the wittle socialist tummies hurt? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45247995)

It's the most frightening time of [the] year
that heart pounding moment
when you spot your open enrollment

'Tis i' the season? Xmas music already?

information lurking in your inbox,
rip it open with trembling hands,
and scream in horror as your annual premium increase leaps from the envelop and mercilessly

Oh.

Apple done fucked up good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45247933)

I decided to switch to Macintosh when I saw the Vista betas. It was pretty clear that where MS wanted me to go wasn't where I wanted to go.

I mention that because Apple now seems to be my Microsoft. iOS 7 is ugly as fuck. OS X has been going downhill (the autosave/versioning sucks for how I use software) and now with 10.9 mail.app regressions and iWorks losing features. I'm not upgrading to iOS 7. I'm not sure if I'll upgrade to 10.9 I need to buy a new computer in a couple months so I may switch to OpenIndiana. Maybe Linux for steam box, we'll see.

Re:Apple done fucked up good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45248379)

iOS 7 is ugly as fuck.

Millions of people love it.

But you, personally, hate it.

So... it must suck.

Re:Apple done fucked up good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45249409)

Millions of peple also hate it. I agree with the AC... it is ugly as fuck.

Re:Apple done fucked up good (4, Informative)

silverdr (779097) | about a year ago | (#45248579)

[...] I mention that because Apple now seems to be my Microsoft. iOS 7 is ugly as fuck.

My fucks are always beautiful. Or at least pretty (when I am more desperate).

Re:Apple done fucked up good (3, Interesting)

silverdr (779097) | about a year ago | (#45248585)

OS X has been going downhill (the autosave/versioning sucks for how I use software) and now with 10.9 mail.app regressions and iWorks losing features. I'm not upgrading to iOS 7. I'm not sure if I'll upgrade to 10.9 I need to buy a new computer in a couple months so I may switch to OpenIndiana. Maybe Linux for steam box, we'll see.

The last uphill version was 10.5. This current 10.9 is in big part back-pedalling the visuals of 10.7/8 without removing the functional crap they introduced. I decided not to go beyond 10.6 the moment I saw "Edge Resize" in 10.7 :-(( So... no, thanks - even being free (as beer) doesn't make it more appealing..

Re:Apple done fucked up good (1)

Guy Harris (3803) | about a year ago | (#45249059)

I decided not to go beyond 10.6 the moment I saw "Edge Resize" in 10.7 :-((

As OS X users finally get the power to unintentionally resize their terminal emulator windows when trying to select text that goes right up to the margin, just as other UN*X users have had for ages. :-)

(Yes, I've done that on a number of times on FreeBSD/Linux/Solaris/etc. inside $PICK_YOUR_TERMINAL_EMULATOR, but didn't feel the joy of doing that on OS X until Lion.)

Re:Apple done fucked up good (1)

flargleblarg (685368) | about a year ago | (#45249417)

As OS X users finally get the power to unintentionally resize their terminal emulator windows when trying to select text that goes right up to the margin, just as other UN*X users have had for ages. :-)

This does not actually happen on OS X... But now I'm curious... how on earth does that happen on other UN*Xs?

Re:Apple done fucked up good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45249807)

you click to the right of text that is pushed up against the left edge of the window, but miss the space in between the letter and the window border and hit the windows border instead, then when you drag left to highlight, instead the window resizes. Previously, the text would highlight and the window would stay the same because there was no edge to grab.

Re:Apple done fucked up good (1, Insightful)

Behrooz Amoozad (2831361) | about a year ago | (#45250009)

If I ever did that, I'd stop working and have my eyes and brain checked for:
1.Not seeing the cursur icon
2.Using mouse when working with a terminal

Re:Apple done fucked up good (2)

Simon Brooke (45012) | about a year ago | (#45250227)

Out of curiosity I've just tried, with every terminal application I have (xterm, lxterm, uxterm, gnome-termonal, konsole...). I can't do it. Perhaps I'm incompetent? Or perhaps it's a bug in some specific window manager? Or perhaps Guy Harris [slashdot.org] is special?

Re:Apple done fucked up good (1)

frisket (149522) | about a year ago | (#45250591)

In Ubuntu at least, the area of sensitivity for dragging a window border appears to be microscopic (actually one pixel). This makes it unbelievably difficult to grab a window border on those occasions when you do want to resize a window. I guess accidentally finding that one-pixel-wide column when trying to select text at the edge must be an application of Sod's Law (aka Murphy's Law).

Apple Build Quality (2, Funny)

johnsie (1158363) | about a year ago | (#45247941)

This must be the Apple build quality that people keep telling me about.

Re: Apple Build Quality (0, Troll)

shokk (187512) | about a year ago | (#45248139)

Gosh you're right. There's no software that ships with critical bugs these days.

Re: Apple Build Quality (3, Informative)

ericloewe (2129490) | about a year ago | (#45248147)

Well, software that generates a thousand copies of junk (seriously, the spam folder of all things...) isn't very typical.

Re: Apple Build Quality (0)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#45248865)

Yes, because this one incident that got reported to slashdot and made the front page for some reason ... is of course happening to everyone on the planet.

Except its not. Isolated incident != the sky is falling

Re: Apple Build Quality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45248157)

Mail.app was better in 10.8. 10.9 is full of regressions.

Re: Apple Build Quality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45248911)

So was iTunes; it hangs on me constantly, especially at the end of syncing my old iOS 6 iPod or when told to quit. Very flaky.

Preview's hung a few times too.

Lots of 10.9 seems buggy, but then the .0 releases have been for ages. That's always been a flaw that the more rabid MacFanbois like to hide; the smart folks wait until the .1 bugfix release is out before upgrading, and I expect 10.9.1 will be decent.

I remember when they released Snow Leopard (10.6) and a new XCode with it and broke CoreData with a weird bug that would delete all data in a persistent store document under some fairly common use case that erroneously saved an empty file if you hadn't changed the data in the document but saved it anyway. I lost like a third of the data in my thesis to that bug (I'd written my own app for handling the data). I swore never to upgrade until the .1 release on any new generation of the OS again and I'd learned what the new bugs were. But here I am with 10.9 anyway, killing iTunes manually.

Re: Apple Build Quality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45248543)

If all your friends were shipping critical bugs as features, would you do it too? Maybe. Would you claim high quality elite status while doing so? No, but morons will buy anything if you market it as a status symbol.

Re: Apple Build Quality (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45248597)

Ships? For the past 3 releases Mail.app will randomly choose not to display the body of a message. I have to quit and reopen Mail.app just to read my e-mail sometimes.

I thought it was just me and something screwy with my account, but the other day I asked a coworker and immediately heads began popping up from cubicles everywhere within earshot, with people admitting they've had precisely the same problem.

Apple's focus on iOS and cute little phone apps has, for whatever reasons, caused defect rates in their core desktop code to serious balloon. Maybe it's because they've greatly expanded their workforce, and there's only so many decent engineers in the valley. I dunno....

I used to admire the high quality of Apple software. Not anymore. And I was never an Apple fanboy. My relationship with Apple was purely practical. They shipped an excellent laptop with a command-line, and I spend 90% of my time staring at terminal windows and logged into various Linux, OpenBSD, and other unix servers writing low-level C code. I still like their laptop, and damnit the command-line stuff still works well enough, but in the other 10% of my time I spend using Apple software, quality has surely dropped precipitously.

I once criticized in Slashdot post Apple's recent flagging support for POSIX. An actual Apple engineer replied, but rather than see refutations in his post, to my eyes I just saw confirmations and excuses. While Apple is too busy to support the latest extensions and addendums to POSIX, the teeny-tiny OpenBSD and NetBSD teams have been furiously becoming more compliant, including useful extensions of their own.

Apple isn't doomed, but the glory days of OS X are gone. iOS will destroy OS X. But all you app developers writing the 10,000th calorie counter... I'm sure you're rejoicing in all those endless tweaks to Objective-C.

Re: Apple Build Quality (1)

Splab (574204) | about a year ago | (#45249935)

I can beat that, whenever someone sends me a mail containing a PDF, it will crash, not only the mail client, but take down the userspace with it.

Re: Apple Build Quality (1)

Rakishi (759894) | about a year ago | (#45250435)

Yes, Apple is *gasp* a company and is driven by profits. When something makes up over 80% of your revenue (and increasing) you focus on that and not the remaining (and shrinking) slice.

Apple's focus on iOS and cute little phone apps has, for whatever reasons

Because that's actually making them money.

caused defect rates in their core desktop code to serious balloon.

Macs and OS X are Apple's side business, they haven't been core for a long long time.

Re: Apple Build Quality (1, Interesting)

Khyber (864651) | about a year ago | (#45248805)

"There's no software that ships with critical bugs these days."

You'd better believe the stuff that ships with my food production systems is FLAWLESS.

When an entire country's population relies upon your tech to even stay alive, you make sure your shit works.

And I work on a budget a billionth Apple's worth.

What's their fucking excuse?

Re: Apple Build Quality (5, Insightful)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#45248879)

If you think the 'stuff that ships with my food production systems is FLAWLESS' you are an idiot who doesn't understand the way the world works.

I've worked in food production and medical, nothing is flawless, you have to be an idiot to make such retarded statements.

You mitigate the risk, try to double/triple/quadrupal check for problems and build in fail-SAFE systems, but you are not flawless.

Your statement sounds more like an arrogant cluebie beginner who's going to get a nice spanking when reality finally hits.

Nothing is flawless, to imply you've created something flawless shows your ignorance.

Re: Apple Build Quality (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45249185)

Your premise was insightful but then fucked it up by being a massive lumbering dick.

What did you gain from that tirade that you wouldn't have by simply stating your opinion in a grownup fashion?

Re: Apple Build Quality (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45249227)

Shut the fuck up, you cum drenched whore. Are you happy now?
- BitZtream

Re: Apple Build Quality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45249321)

Shut the fuck up, you cum drenched whore. Are you happy now?

Finally!

Re: Apple Build Quality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45249811)

Flawless software exists. NASA can do it, as have several private companies. It's just that people overestimate the benefit, and underestimate the cost, of flawless software.

We don't need flawless software. If the marginal cost of excising the last few bugs in a program cost $1 billion, but the social benefit is only $10 million in prospective damage reduction, then it wasn't worth it.

Re: Apple Build Quality (2)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#45250113)

10 PRINT "HELLO WORLD"
20 GOTO 10

Flawless.

Re: Apple Build Quality (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#45250609)

Doesn't meet the design requirements.

Re: Apple Build Quality (1)

Jeremi (14640) | about a year ago | (#45249533)

When an entire country's population relies upon your tech to even stay alive, you make sure your shit works. [...] What's their fucking excuse?

Nobody relies on Mac Mail to even stay alive?

Re: Apple Build Quality (2)

Skuld-Chan (302449) | about a year ago | (#45248951)

How long has imap been around now? The RFC was last updated in 2003 - thats only 10 years to get it right.

Re: Apple Build Quality (1)

Bronster (13157) | about a year ago | (#45249713)

Oh, there are plenty of new RFCs coming out all the time. The most interesting bugs in mail clients tend to be trying to support new RFCs and not getting it right.

Re:Apple Build Quality (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45249019)

This must be the Apple build quality that people keep telling me about.

Sure, sure, smartass. Go ahead and blame Apple for the user not using a server with Apple's iMAP protocol. Like it's APPLE'S fault the sysadmin is obviously too lazy to license their Standard(tm) in an acceptable amount of time near the launch of OSX 10.9. Pssh.

Re:Apple Build Quality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45249067)

It just works.

Re:Apple Build Quality (1)

Behrooz Amoozad (2831361) | about a year ago | (#45250087)

Your'e confusing apple with apache.

Re:Apple Build Quality (1)

Behrooz Amoozad (2831361) | about a year ago | (#45250099)

on second thought, apache says "it works".

One infinity drive. (4, Funny)

MRe_nl (306212) | about a year ago | (#45248001)

Not just an address anymore.

Re:One infinity drive. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45248155)

If you're making a joke about the address of Apple's corporate HQ, you got it wrong:

1 INFINITE LOOP
CUPERTINO CA 95014-2083

Re:One infinity drive. (2)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year ago | (#45248203)

Maybe he just needs to drink a cup of very hot tea.

Re:One infinity drive. (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | about a year ago | (#45249125)

Maybe he just needs to drink a cup of very hot tea.

And something to stick in it.

Re:One infinity drive. (1)

styrotech (136124) | about a year ago | (#45249287)

Improbable.

Re:One infinity drive. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45249597)

Only until the inifinigon [mercurynews.com] is built.

Re:One infinity drive. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45248197)

Be gentle, this is their first attempt at the Big Data.

All hail Apple's new storage technology! (2, Funny)

chrism238 (657741) | about a year ago | (#45248011)

"The actual emails added up to about 2MB of actual disk usage," So the 1,2, or 3 million emails occupied just 2MB of storage? Wow, Apple should be widely lauded for being able to store each email, including its header, in just one byte!

Re:All hail Apple's new storage technology! (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45248093)

From the summary: "The actual emails added up to about 2MB of actual disk usage, but the bug generated an additional 2GB of data on top of that." Which I assume means that it was really only 2MB of emails, but the duplication (ie millions of emails) used up 2GB.

Re:All hail Apple's new storage technology! (4, Funny)

Bronster (13157) | about a year ago | (#45248471)

We de-duplicate on COPY, so there was only one copy of each email on disk. We don't de-dulplicate metadata though, because it's usually so small, and generally in the cache file of a different folder, where de-duplication isn't possible.

Re:All hail Apple's new storage technology! (1)

Bongo (13261) | about a year ago | (#45248713)

i've noticed weirdness when moving messages between mailboxes. drag and drop to move, then later i notice it is still there. gmail account.

Re:All hail Apple's new storage technology! (2)

immaterial (1520413) | about a year ago | (#45249043)

This is one of the bugs I reported months ago that got marked 'closed.' :/

Enable the "all mail" folder to be visible in IMAP, and remove [Gmail] as your IMAP path prefix. That fixed it for me.

Re:All hail Apple's new storage technology! (2)

tftp (111690) | about a year ago | (#45248115)

Wow, Apple should be widely lauded for being able to store each email, including its header, in just one byte!

Even that is awfully wasteful. To store spam wisely you use a counter. If the size of the counter is 64 bits, each individual spam message occupies 64/2^64 bits, or 3.5e-18 bits.

Naturally, all spam will look alike to you, but doesn't it already?

Re:All hail Apple's new storage technology! (1)

arkhan_jg (618674) | about a year ago | (#45248239)

They de-dupe disk storage, so 2 million copies of 71 emails take up no more room than the original 71. The index metafile *about* those duplicate messages, on the other hand...

Re:All hail Apple's new storage technology! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45248391)

It is right in the summary you just quoted. I guess you skipped a line or two and only read what you copy-pasted:

It then expunges the old copies of the messages

Re:All hail Apple's new storage technology! (1)

maccodemonkey (1438585) | about a year ago | (#45249033)

"The actual emails added up to about 2MB of actual disk usage,"

So the 1,2, or 3 million emails occupied just 2MB of storage?
Wow, Apple should be widely lauded for being able to store each email, including its header, in just one byte!

It's 71 messages. The 1, 2, 3 million being mentioned is the UID being incremented, not more space being eaten.

Buggiest Mail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45248017)

This version of mail has numerous glitches. The support for Gmail is totally ruined, and it also ends up using more resources than the previous version.
Should have thought twice before upgrading!

Re:Buggiest Mail (2)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year ago | (#45248119)

Actually part of the problem is they made Mail.app work better with Gmail, but all the hacks that used to be necessary really screw things up. Apple should've posted a FAQ about the changes rather than quietly make them.

One big change... you need to enable "All Mail" in IMAP now, since the latest Mail.app wants that as the Archive folder (which makes sense). But everyone has it disabled in IMAP since, up until now, it was problematic to do otherwise.

I found https://tidbits.com/article/14219 [tidbits.com] to be helpful.

Re:Buggiest Mail (2)

arkhan_jg (618674) | about a year ago | (#45248291)

Even enabling All Mail doesn't do the trick - from that tidbits article: (which has been doing the rounds quite a bit)

That is, I can read, move, delete, reply to, or otherwise operate on messages in my Inbox on the Gmail Web site, on my iPhone or iPad, or in another IMAP client, and they all sync up perfectly with each other — but even after several hours, my Inbox in the Mavericks version of Mail doesn’t reflect those changes. It seems not to matter how frequently I tell Mail to check for new messages. I also tried quitting and restarting Mail, rebuilding the Inbox, and forcing a synchronization — several times — but my Inbox stubbornly refused to reflect reality. Occasionally I’ll glance at Mail after having ignored it for hours and notice that the Inbox is closer to being up to date than it used to be, but I can’t figure out when, why, or how this happens. This is the behavior that makes me truly crazy — if I have to keep Gmail open in a Web browser to make sure I’m getting all my messages, I might as well not be running Mail at all.

My boss is a) an Apple fan, and b) a Mail fan. I've had to instruct him and a couple of other senior management not to go to Mavericks for the time being. Because we use Google Apps, and having mail notifications delayed for hours is going to be a problem. Switching to a decent email client would of course solve the problem, but he loves Mail to death, and he'd rather switch the whole company to another mail provider than give it up (seriously - he suggested it because of this). Not that having Mail cause problems is anything new; my personal favourite is the way Mail does embedded attachments, causing most other mail clients to struggle to handle his messages - usually, they end up with half an email, the attachment, and a second (and sometimes 3rd and 4th) set of attachments with the rest of the email message piecemeal. And then he complains that people can't read his bloody mail.

Showing that it's not just Gmail getting f***** up the IMAP by Maverick Mail will be quite useful to argue the real problem, as usual, is Mail.

Re:Buggiest Mail (1)

immaterial (1520413) | about a year ago | (#45248347)

If you're using [Gmail] as the IMAP path prefix, try getting rid of that, too. That solved all my problems.

Re:Buggiest Mail (1)

real gumby (11516) | about a year ago | (#45248509)

Not to comment on the rest of of your note (I don't use GMail so have no idea what its support is like, on either end) but on your other complaint I have a hard time agreeing:

Not that having Mail cause problems is anything new; my personal favourite is the way Mail does embedded attachments, causing most other mail clients to struggle to handle his messages - usually, they end up with half an email, the attachment, and a second (and sometimes 3rd and 4th) set of attachments with the rest of the email message piecemeal. And then he complains that people can't read his bloody mail.

I have seen this but the garble I've experienced has only been with users with Outlook. (There may be other clients with problems reading them -- I don't know.) I've looked at those Apple Mail.app-generated messages and they appear to me to be completely RFC compliant. Very strictly so.

Now Apple Mail may or may not suck, but in this case they appear to me to be blameless.

Gave up on Mail.app years ago (1)

kwerle (39371) | about a year ago | (#45248101)

Seems like Mail.app has been getting worse since about 2003. I finally gave up on it about 5 years ago - in favor of gmail's web interface. At first I was a little disgusted with myself - but I've never regretted it.

I still use mail on my iOS devices, though. Have not yet seen a better UI for those.

Re:Gave up on Mail.app years ago (1)

ryanw (131814) | about a year ago | (#45248191)

Seems like Mail.app has been getting worse since about 2003. I finally gave up on it about 5 years ago - in favor of gmail's web interface. At first I was a little disgusted with myself - but I've never regretted it.

I still use mail on my iOS devices, though. Have not yet seen a better UI for those.

I agree. I find myself using too many machines, in too many places to really care about a desktop version of the mail program, especially now that my mail storage is using about 15GB of data. The only "mail app" I use is the built in app on my iPhone, otherwise all web portals for me.

Re: Gave up on Mail.app years ago (1)

laffer1 (701823) | about a year ago | (#45248231)

I use mail on iOS and google gmail client for work mail. Both are decent but I think gmail is slightly better. You should try it. I don't actually like Gmail all that much but the iOS app is good.

As for desktop, mail.app is buggy but not as bad as trying to use thunderbird. All mail clients suck

Re:Gave up on Mail.app years ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45249615)

I was in the same boat until my workplace switched over to outlook. The outlook web client is quite possibly the worst mail client I've ever used. The desktop version of Outlook for Mac would lose its ActiveSync connection after about 5 minutes and I'd stop getting mail until I quit and restarted it. So, in desperation, I've switched back to Mail.app and it's actually not as bad as I would have feared. It doesn't work well with Gmail, though, since Gmail's tags are somewhat different than IMAP folders, but I put that mostly on Google trying to pretend that what they have is IMAP compatible.

All that said, I miss the Gmail web interface.

Re:Gave up on Mail.app years ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45249823)

I use the gmail notifier, it sits in my menu bar and notifies me of new gmail messages, and integrates the gmail web-app into the system as the default mail program. Its quite handy to click an e-mail link or address in a program and have a web browser pop up, logged into gmail and show me the appropriate compose message screen.

But I thought it just worked! (1, Troll)

AuMatar (183847) | about a year ago | (#45248109)

Apple can't have bugs like this- it just works. Maybe they're sending it wrong?

Whar is wrong with programmers? (2, Insightful)

cpotoso (606303) | about a year ago | (#45248167)

I mean, it is a MAIL program, not a revolutionary new product. The protocols have been out there for years (esp. IMAP). Why is it still buggy? Even worse: why is it buggier than the previous version? If it worked before THERE IS NO F*ING EXCUSE FOR IT NOT TO WORK NOW. Very very very lame.

Re:Whar is wrong with programmers? (1)

ryanw (131814) | about a year ago | (#45248205)

I mean, it is a MAIL program, not a revolutionary new product. The protocols have been out there for years (esp. IMAP). Why is it still buggy? Even worse: why is it buggier than the previous version? If it worked before THERE IS NO F*ING EXCUSE FOR IT NOT TO WORK NOW. Very very very lame.

I would imagine they have uplifted the app and re-written a large portion of the application to work with new interfaces like outlook or whatever. Also perhaps they're trying to do something new with spam in specific to help reduce spam as a whole when using various services. This is a bad bug, and could cause a lot of problems for service providers if it's legitimate and not a "single case", but bugs happen. I'm surprised nobody caught it with the beta versions. Apple has been surprisingly good lately about getting developers the beta versions of the OS before the release. Due to the intense secrecy of apple, in the past, developers didn't get access to the later versions of OSX until the same time as the consumers. This used to be a nightmare when dealing with professional software and drivers for anything beyond what came with the mac.

Re:Whar is wrong with programmers? (5, Interesting)

immaterial (1520413) | about a year ago | (#45248387)

I filed some bugs on Mavericks' Mail right after the first developer preview came out (all ended up being marked as duplicates, so others were having the same issue). All were closed the week before the GM was released. And all are still present in the GM; they're MailGmail specific. However, enabling "All Mail" and removing [Gmail] from my IMAP path prefix made everything work.

Clearly, whoever rewrote Mail to "better" support Gmail decided that as long as it worked okay with just the right settings, any deviation from that wasn't a bug but just user error. Despite the fact that those settings were both perfectly valid and *incredibly* common.

I think moving OS X to a yearly release schedule results in them pushing things out too fast. It's bad enough with iOS, and OS X is a more complex beast.

As someone once said... (4, Funny)

feranick (858651) | about a year ago | (#45249087)

... it's not a bug. You're holding it wrong.

Re:Whar is wrong with programmers? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#45249627)

..what? it works fine with "vanilla" settings but not on their specific hacks??

Re:Whar is wrong with programmers? (1)

immaterial (1520413) | about a year ago | (#45249865)

Whose hacks? (What hacks?) I'm not clear on what you're asking.

Re:Whar is wrong with programmers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45248321)

I mean, it is a MAIL program, not a revolutionary new product.

It IS revolutionary. It is not just a new version of an existing product, it is a new version of an existing APPLE product.

Re:Whar is wrong with programmers? (2)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#45248491)

Whar is wrong with programmers?

There's a long list of answers to that - but the real question here is what is wrong with the testers that let something stupid from a rookie or slapdash programmer out into the wild. The answer to that is probably that they are at home looking though the job ads because proper testing was not considered important enough.
Email problems are fun when they happen to somebody else because of how much they can snowball into ridiculously huge numbers of messages. I've worked with an idiot that decided he wanted to get an email notification every time there was a problem with a mail server - you get one guess as to how the thing ran out of disk, memory, crashed and why he's not allowed on production systems any more. That's right, every error message generated a few more.

Tell that Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45249791)

Gmail isn't IMAP, it emulates IMAP, badly. And there are true IMAP servers out there that aren't much better. IMAP is a complex protocol and many details aren't really cast in stone.

Believe it or not, but Mail.app is actually one of the better clients out there.

Re:Whar is wrong with programmers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45250455)

How dare you?
All Apple things are not only revolutionary, but actually magical!!

I'm sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45248221)

Apple's response will be their usual, "Our shit doesn't stink".

what did you expect (1, Flamebait)

LodCrappo (705968) | about a year ago | (#45248647)

This is the company that can't correctly implement daylight savings time in an alarm application. You expect them to handle something as complex as implementing an ages old industry standard correctly?

Apple is known for selling lots of shiny bobbles, not for writing solid code.

Vicious cycle of bugs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45248699)

I'm seriously considering switching back to Windows just for some stability in my computing life. I know Windows 8 is crap, but I don't care- because I know Windows 7 will probably be supported in some fashion for the next 10 years.

Ever since Apple switched to this yearly release cycle bullshit, things have gone steadily downhill. Features are almost never completed and only half baked, and you're lucky if they bother fixing any of it with the minor updates. More often then not you have to wait for the next major point release (ugh), which may or may not fix your issue and will probably introduce a dozen other stupid bugs that should have never gotten past Q/A.

Since Apple doesn't do backwards compatibility anymore, you're basically forced into the current version of the OS, which means you're forced into this never ending loop of bugs and crappy release cycles. It's a bit of a software nightmare, actually- especially if all you want is a reliable tool that is there for you that you can depend on NOT changing unless you want to change it.

Nothing new (1, Troll)

Taantric (2587965) | about a year ago | (#45248729)

Apple has always been better at marketing than software engineering. The iSheep hipsters don't care. It's more important to be seen at the coffee shop using a Macbook than actual productivity.

iMail has a history of infinate recursion (4, Interesting)

maas15 (1357089) | about a year ago | (#45248799)

This isn't the first infinate recursion iMail bug. Around five years ago I worked for a webhost at which we had customers complaining about there being nothing in their INBOX. When we checked, we'd find a giant tree of INBOX folders - for some reason iMail would create a new subirectory called INBOX every time it logged in, and then make the *new* INBOX folder the default INBOX. All the mail would still be delivered to the original inbox...

Re:iMail has a history of infinate recursion (1)

halexists (2587109) | about a year ago | (#45248897)

And by iMail I assume you mean the program called "Mail" that ships with Mac OS X?

Re:iMail has a history of infinate recursion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45249389)

TFA actually mentioned the "INBOX.INBOX.INBOX.INBOX.INBOX.INBOX" problem. Apparently they now block attempts to create additional INBOXes.

dom

No more mail apps from Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45249223)

Seriously, how many times are people going to let Apple drop the ball and release a crappy e-mail client. Over-looping and high server utilization are the hallmarks of every other OSX or iOS Mail app version. Wasn't it earlier this year that iOS was knocking Exchange servers offline. Take a look at an Exchange or other e-mail server log file and compare per client entries for iOS / OSX (any version) versus any other client software. It's around 10:1 in access entries.

It's a defense against the NSA (4, Funny)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | about a year ago | (#45249693)

By generating so much metadata, the NSA will overflow and your real messages' metadata will be overwritten!!!1!.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?