Mailing-List: contact mime4j-dev-help@james.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: mime4j-dev@james.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <1323436816.21905.28.camel@ubuntu>
Subject: Re: Switching from 0.6 to 0.7.1 - address parsing, CRLF issues
From: Oleg Kalnichevski <olegk@apache.org>
To: mime4j-dev@james.apache.org
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 14:20:16 +0100
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAO9cvUYdJjXRUtco1L6fMCCyrYByxx6MZu=+UhFeCbdV+g4Bxg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
	<CAO9cvUYdJjXRUtco1L6fMCCyrYByxx6MZu=+UhFeCbdV+g4Bxg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Mime-Version: 1.0

On Wed, 2011-12-07 at 16:50 +0100, Lukáš Vlček wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> First of all, thanks for this library!
> 
> I am new to this list, but I have been using mime4j for some time now (but
> I would not call myself an expert on it though).
> 
> I switched from 0.6 to 0.7.1 recently and my tests started to fail in some
> cases:
> 
> 1) Parsing address:
> 
> I have this in the mail header:
> From: "=?utf-8?B?amlhY2NAZ2lsbGlvbi5jb20uY24=?=" <jiacc@gillion.com.cn>
> 
> in 0.6 I was able to have it parsed into: "jiacc@gillion.com.cn <
> jiacc@gillion.com.cn>"
> I am unable to get the same result with 0.7.1
> 
> Another similar example is:
> From: =?GBK?B?x67T7rrn?= <yhqian99@163.com>
> 
> in 0.6 it was giving me: "钱宇虹 <yhqian99@163.com>"
> in 0.7.1 I can not get it.
> 
> 
> 2) CRLF instead of LF
> 
> In body texts I am getting CRLF (\r\n) where I was getting LF (\n) with 0.6
> 
> 
> More generally, is there anything in particular I should pay attention to
> when switching from 0.6 to 0.7.1 ?
> 
> Regards,
> Lukas

Lukas

If you are reasonably sure mime4j does not correctly parse certain MIME
messages please open raise a JIRA for each case separately and provide a
sample message  in binary format (as an attachment) and a test case
reproducing the issue.

Oleg