| Andrzej Rusin (JIRA) |
[jira] Created: (MIME4J-139) DelegatingFieldParser NPE problem |
Tue, 03 Nov, 09:31 |
| Markus Wiederkehr (JIRA) |
[jira] Commented: (MIME4J-139) DelegatingFieldParser NPE problem |
Tue, 03 Nov, 15:11 |
| Oleg Kalnichevski (JIRA) |
[jira] Commented: (MIME4J-139) DelegatingFieldParser NPE problem |
Tue, 03 Nov, 22:12 |
| Markus Wiederkehr (JIRA) |
[jira] Commented: (MIME4J-139) DelegatingFieldParser NPE problem |
Tue, 03 Nov, 23:06 |
| Stefano Bagnara (JIRA) |
[jira] Commented: (MIME4J-139) DelegatingFieldParser NPE problem |
Wed, 04 Nov, 00:06 |
| Andrzej Rusin (JIRA) |
[jira] Commented: (MIME4J-139) DelegatingFieldParser NPE problem |
Wed, 04 Nov, 07:03 |
| Apache Hudson Server |
Build failed in Hudson: mime4j-trunk #630 |
Sat, 07 Nov, 04:01 |
| Apache Hudson Server |
Hudson build is back to normal: mime4j-trunk #631 |
Sat, 07 Nov, 05:08 |
| Kristian Rink |
using mime4j to work with IMAP messages? |
Mon, 09 Nov, 13:02 |
| Norman Maurer |
Re: using mime4j to work with IMAP messages? |
Mon, 09 Nov, 13:08 |
| mike bell (JIRA) |
[jira] Created: (MIME4J-140) MIME4J-57 is not practical in its limits and incorrect in its RFC interpretation |
Sun, 15 Nov, 07:58 |
| mike bell (JIRA) |
[jira] Commented: (MIME4J-140) MIME4J-57 is not practical in its limits and incorrect in its RFC interpretation |
Sun, 15 Nov, 08:00 |
| Oleg Kalnichevski (JIRA) |
[jira] Commented: (MIME4J-140) MIME4J-57 is not practical in its limits and incorrect in its RFC interpretation |
Sun, 15 Nov, 14:58 |
| Markus Wiederkehr (JIRA) |
[jira] Commented: (MIME4J-140) MIME4J-57 is not practical in its limits and incorrect in its RFC interpretation |
Sun, 15 Nov, 18:43 |
| Oleg Kalnichevski (JIRA) |
[jira] Commented: (MIME4J-140) MIME4J-57 is not practical in its limits and incorrect in its RFC interpretation |
Sun, 15 Nov, 19:01 |
| mwiederk...@apache.org |
svn commit: r836394 - in /james/mime4j/trunk: benchmark/ examples/ |
Sun, 15 Nov, 19:06 |
| mwiederk...@apache.org |
svn commit: r836395 - /james/mime4j/trunk/assemble/ |
Sun, 15 Nov, 19:09 |
| Markus Wiederkehr (JIRA) |
[jira] Commented: (MIME4J-139) DelegatingFieldParser NPE problem |
Sun, 15 Nov, 20:07 |
| mwiederk...@apache.org |
svn commit: r836402 - /james/mime4j/trunk/core/src/main/java/org/apache/james/mime4j/field/DelegatingFieldParser.java |
Sun, 15 Nov, 20:14 |
| mwiederk...@apache.org |
svn commit: r836403 - /james/mime4j/trunk/core/src/main/java/org/apache/james/mime4j/field/AbstractField.java |
Sun, 15 Nov, 20:15 |
| Markus Wiederkehr (JIRA) |
[jira] Resolved: (MIME4J-139) DelegatingFieldParser NPE problem |
Sun, 15 Nov, 20:17 |
| Markus Wiederkehr (JIRA) |
[jira] Commented: (MIME4J-140) MIME4J-57 is not practical in its limits and incorrect in its RFC interpretation |
Sun, 15 Nov, 20:41 |
| Markus Wiederkehr (JIRA) |
[jira] Commented: (MIME4J-140) MIME4J-57 is not practical in its limits and incorrect in its RFC interpretation |
Sun, 15 Nov, 20:43 |
| Oleg Kalnichevski (JIRA) |
[jira] Commented: (MIME4J-140) MIME4J-57 is not practical in its limits and incorrect in its RFC interpretation |
Sun, 15 Nov, 22:27 |
| Markus Wiederkehr (JIRA) |
[jira] Commented: (MIME4J-140) MIME4J-57 is not practical in its limits and incorrect in its RFC interpretation |
Sun, 15 Nov, 22:45 |
| Apache Hudson Server |
Build failed in Hudson: mime4j-trunk #641 |
Mon, 16 Nov, 01:21 |
| Apache Hudson Server |
Build failed in Hudson: mime4j-trunk #642 |
Mon, 16 Nov, 02:29 |
| Apache Hudson Server |
Hudson build is back to normal: mime4j-trunk #643 |
Mon, 16 Nov, 05:35 |
| mwiederk...@apache.org |
svn commit: r880687 - /james/mime4j/trunk/core/src/main/java/org/apache/james/mime4j/parser/MimeEntityConfig.java |
Mon, 16 Nov, 09:27 |
| mwiederk...@apache.org |
svn commit: r880688 - /james/mime4j/trunk/core/src/main/java/org/apache/james/mime4j/parser/MimeEntityConfig.java |
Mon, 16 Nov, 09:31 |
| mwiederk...@apache.org |
svn commit: r880692 - /james/mime4j/trunk/core/src/main/java/org/apache/james/mime4j/parser/MimeEntityConfig.java |
Mon, 16 Nov, 09:47 |
| Markus Wiederkehr (JIRA) |
[jira] Assigned: (MIME4J-140) MIME4J-57 is not practical in its limits and incorrect in its RFC interpretation |
Mon, 16 Nov, 11:13 |
| mwiederk...@apache.org |
svn commit: r880712 - in /james/mime4j/trunk/core/src: main/java/org/apache/james/mime4j/parser/AbstractEntity.java main/java/org/apache/james/mime4j/parser/MimeEntityConfig.java test/java/org/apache/james/mime4j/parser/MimeEntityTest.java |
Mon, 16 Nov, 11:25 |
| Markus Wiederkehr (JIRA) |
[jira] Commented: (MIME4J-140) MIME4J-57 is not practical in its limits and incorrect in its RFC interpretation |
Mon, 16 Nov, 11:29 |
| mwiederk...@apache.org |
svn commit: r880728 - in /james/mime4j/trunk/core/src: main/java/org/apache/james/mime4j/io/MaxHeaderLengthLimitException.java main/java/org/apache/james/mime4j/parser/AbstractEntity.java test/java/org/apache/james/mime4j/parser/MimeEntityTest.java |
Mon, 16 Nov, 12:36 |
| mwiederk...@apache.org |
svn commit: r880739 - /james/mime4j/trunk/core/src/main/java/org/apache/james/mime4j/parser/AbstractEntity.java |
Mon, 16 Nov, 13:22 |
| Markus Wiederkehr (JIRA) |
[jira] Commented: (MIME4J-140) MIME4J-57 is not practical in its limits and incorrect in its RFC interpretation |
Mon, 16 Nov, 13:29 |
| Markus Wiederkehr |
Release 0.6.1? |
Mon, 16 Nov, 13:55 |
| Norman Maurer |
Re: Release 0.6.1? |
Mon, 16 Nov, 13:57 |
| Oleg Kalnichevski (JIRA) |
[jira] Commented: (MIME4J-140) MIME4J-57 is not practical in its limits and incorrect in its RFC interpretation |
Tue, 17 Nov, 19:00 |
| Oleg Kalnichevski |
Re: Release 0.6.1? |
Tue, 17 Nov, 19:00 |
| Norman Maurer |
Re: Release 0.6.1? |
Wed, 18 Nov, 11:12 |
| Oleg Kalnichevski |
Re: SMTP Transport? |
Sun, 22 Nov, 23:31 |
| Norman Maurer |
Re: SMTP Transport? |
Mon, 23 Nov, 19:46 |
| Oleg Kalnichevski |
Address list parser expects unfolded field body. Does that make sense? |
Fri, 27 Nov, 13:24 |
| Oleg Kalnichevski |
Re: Address list parser expects unfolded field body. Does that make sense? |
Fri, 27 Nov, 13:37 |
| Markus Wiederkehr |
Re: Address list parser expects unfolded field body. Does that make sense? |
Fri, 27 Nov, 18:58 |
| Oleg Kalnichevski |
Re: Address list parser expects unfolded field body. Does that make sense? |
Fri, 27 Nov, 21:21 |
| Markus Wiederkehr |
Re: Address list parser expects unfolded field body. Does that make sense? |
Fri, 27 Nov, 23:02 |
| Oleg Kalnichevski |
Re: Address list parser expects unfolded field body. Does that make sense? |
Fri, 27 Nov, 23:19 |
| Markus Wiederkehr |
Re: Address list parser expects unfolded field body. Does that make sense? |
Sun, 29 Nov, 19:22 |