james-mime4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Switching from 0.6 to 0.7.1 - address parsing, CRLF issues
Date Sat, 17 Dec 2011 12:55:39 GMT
On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 19:52 +0100, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> 2011/12/16 Lukáš Vlček <lukas.vlcek@gmail.com>:
> > Hi Stefano,
> >
> > is there any workaround?
> 
> It is already fixed in trunk. So the workaround is using a recent snapshot!
> 

Lukáš

Alternatively you can always use a custom field parser as well 

Oleg

> Stefano
> 
> > Regards,
> > Lukas
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Stefano Bagnara <apache@bago.org> wrote:
> >
> >> I guess this is a bug in 0.7.1:
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-208
> >>
> >> Stefano
> >>
> >> 2011/12/16 Lukáš Vlček <lukas.vlcek@gmail.com>:
> >> > Hey again,
> >> >
> >> > I think I found another difference between 0.6 and 0.7.1
> >> >
> >> > It is about parsing the "Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:11:10 +0800" header
> >> field
> >> >
> >> > Given the following mbox file source:
> >> >
> >> https://github.com/lukas-vlcek/mime4j-test/blob/workaround/src/test/resources/mbox/hibernate-announce-01.mbox
> >> >
> >> > I am getting different results.
> >> >
> >> > 0.7.1
> >> > it is translated into "2007/03/25 16:11:10" (UTC based)
> >> >
> >> https://github.com/lukas-vlcek/mime4j-test/blob/workaround/src/test/java/org/mime4j/test/BasicTest.java#L132
> >> >
> >> > 0.6
> >> > it is translated into "2007/03/26 04:11:10" (UTC based)
> >> >
> >> https://github.com/lukas-vlcek/mime4j-test/blob/backto06/src/test/java/org/mime4j/test/BasicTest.java#L129
> >> >
> >> > Why I am getting this difference?
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Lukas
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Lukáš Vlček <lukas.vlcek@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi Stefano,
> >> >>
> >> >> I was not aware of the RCF line breaks specification. Thanks!
> >> >>
> >> >> I will let you know if I encounter any other issues. Thanks a lot guys.
> >> >>
> >> >> Regards,
> >> >> Lukas
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Stefano Bagnara <apache@bago.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> I guess mime4j 0.6 output was not mime compliant.
> >> >>> MIME requires newlines in text parts to use CRLF (\r\n) as line
> >> >>> separators and also says that CR and LF are not allowed in a text
part
> >> >>> other than in the line separator sequence.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> From RFC2046:
> >> >>> ---
> >> >>> 4.1.1.  Representation of Line Breaks
> >> >>>
> >> >>>   The canonical form of any MIME "text" subtype MUST always represent
a
> >> >>>   line break as a CRLF sequence.  Similarly, any occurrence of
CRLF in
> >> >>>   MIME "text" MUST represent a line break.  Use of CR and LF outside
of
> >> >>>   line break sequences is also forbidden.
> >> >>> ---
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Most email clients accept LF (\n) line separators, but CRLF is
the
> >> right
> >> >>> one.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> So in 0.7 in fixed this bug.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 0.6 vs 0.7 differences aside, are you experiencing issues with
the
> >> >>> CRLF used by mime4j 0.7 ?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Stefano
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 2011/12/15 Lukáš Vlček <lukas.vlcek@gmail.com>:
> >> >>> > Hey again,
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > I did downgraded my code to 0.6 version to see what differences
I
> >> will
> >> >>> get.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Unfortunatelly, I was not able to prove that the below
> >> >>> > mentioned message.getHeader().getField("from").getBody() did
decoding
> >> >>> > however, I was able to show that I am getting different content
from
> >> >>> > TextBody.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > There are two branches in my github repo now:
> >> >>> > - workaboud (using mime4j 0.7.2)
> >> >>> > - backto06 (using mime4j 0.6)
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > I would like to point out the following parts of my test:
> >> >>> >
> >> >>>
> >> https://github.com/lukas-vlcek/mime4j-test/blob/workaround/src/test/java/org/mime4j/test/BasicTest.java#L112
> >> >>> > vs.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>>
> >> https://github.com/lukas-vlcek/mime4j-test/blob/backto06/src/test/java/org/mime4j/test/BasicTest.java#L110
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > The first is using 0.7.2 and I am getting "\r\n" sequence
where using
> >> >>> 0.6 I
> >> >>> > am getting only "\n".
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > I am not saying there is a bug in Mime4J but I would like
to
> >> understand
> >> >>> > what has changed and why I am getting different results using
> >> different
> >> >>> > mime4j version. As you can see I did not change anything important
in
> >> >>> any
> >> >>> > of util classes between "workaround" and "backto06" branches:
> >> >>> >
> >> >>>
> >> https://github.com/lukas-vlcek/mime4j-test/compare/workaround...backto06
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > The only important change (except different version of mime4j)
is in
> >> >>> > ParseUtil class where I had to drop MessageBuilder logic:
> >> >>> >
> >> >>>
> >> https://github.com/lukas-vlcek/mime4j-test/compare/workaround...backto06#diff-2
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Any idea why I am getting "\r\n" chars instead of "\n"?
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Regards,
> >> >>> > Lukas
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Lukáš Vlček <lukas.vlcek@gmail.com>
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >> OK, got it.
> >> >>> >> (Although in 0.6 it was returning decoded content)
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> Regards,
> >> >>> >> Lukas
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski <
> >> olegk@apache.org
> >> >>> >wrote:
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >>> On Thu, 2011-12-15 at 11:41 +0100, Lukáš Vlček
wrote:
> >> >>> >>> > Hi,
> >> >>> >>> >
> >> >>> >>> > I tried it and it works. Thanks!
> >> >>> >>> >
> >> >>> >>> > However, still I am not sure if this fixed everything.
> >> >>> >>> > See the following commit in my test repo on github
(I added a new
> >> >>> branch
> >> >>> >>> > called "workaround")
> >> >>> >>> >
> >> >>> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> https://github.com/lukas-vlcek/mime4j-test/commit/385c66847bec4393ad67069fb367c174f87c5656
> >> >>> >>> >
> >> >>> >>> > As you can see the call to  message.getFrom().get(0).getName()
> >> >>> returns
> >> >>> >>> > expected data, but message.getHeader().getField("from").getBody()
> >> >>> does
> >> >>> >>> not.
> >> >>> >>> > At least that is how I understand its JavaDoc:
> >> >>> >>> >
> >> >>> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> http://james.apache.org/mime4j/apidocs/org/apache/james/mime4j/stream/Field.html#getBody()
> >> >>> >>> >
> >> >>> >>> > "Gets the unparsed and possibly encoded (see
RFC 2047) field body
> >> >>> >>> string."
> >> >>> >>> >
> >> >>> >>> > How should I understand the "encoded" in this
context?
> >> >>> >>> >
> >> >>> >>>
> >> >>> >>> Encoded actually means, well, encoded, as specified
in RFC 2047.
> >> >>> >>>
> >> >>> >>> Oleg
> >> >>> >>>
> >> >>> >>>
> >> >>> >>>
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>



Mime
View raw message