james-mime4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Lukáš Vlček <lukas.vl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Switching from 0.6 to 0.7.1 - address parsing, CRLF issues
Date Fri, 16 Dec 2011 18:04:27 GMT
Hi Stefano,

is there any workaround?

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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message