MIME4J-57 is not practical in its limits and incorrect in its RFC interpretation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key: MIME4J-140
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-140
Project: JAMES Mime4j
Issue Type: Bug
Affects Versions: 0.6
Reporter: mike bell
I have begun playing with Mime4j for potential use in a software project. Very
quickly I found a simple email (Which i can attach) which has about 30 TO
addresses. The default was to throw an exception
Looking at MIME4J-57 the author has misunderstood the SMTP RFC 2821. Yes you
are limited to 998 octets PER LINE, but you may FOLD as many 998 octet lines as
you wish. Technically it's 100% legal to have a 50 megabyte header value, as
long as it is folded. (per 76 or 998 rules).
I think the limit chosen by default of 1000 is absurdly low - this should be
100000 minimum or perhaps even unlimited by default. There is something to be
said for a sanity check option, for sure - but not one that is triggered so
easily.
I can also open somewhat related JIRAS if people find them of merit:
1. Documentation - defaults should be clearly stated in MimeEntityConfig
javadoc. They are not
2. Bug - The javadocs for MimeEntityConfig claim mc.setMaxHeaderCount(-1);
would defeat; this check. It does not (I worked around with Integer.MaxValue)
3. Design Question: Should the MimeTokenStream not have a public constructor
that allows MimeEntityConfig to be fed. As it was I had to create my own
subclass to access the protected constructor - is there a reason for this?
Thanks
Example header that blew stuff up (and I think we've all seen far far worse!) -
The To line triggers this
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Received: from c.mx.sonic.net (c.mx.sonic.net [64.142.100.46])
by eth0.a.lds.sonic.net (8.13.8.Beta0-Sonic/8.13.7) with ESMTP id
mBT21U5h027864;
Sun, 28 Dec 2008 18:01:30 -0800
Received: from bay0-omc2-s13.bay0.hotmail.com (bay0-omc2-s13.bay0.hotmail.com
[65.54.246.149])
by c.mx.sonic.net (8.13.8.Beta0-Sonic/8.13.7) with ESMTP id
mBT21QuA026548;
Sun, 28 Dec 2008 18:01:30 -0800
Received: from BAY117-W11 ([207.46.8.46]) by bay0-omc2-s13.bay0.hotmail.com
with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
Sun, 28 Dec 2008 18:01:26 -0800
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="_03df338b-5029-48d8-84e8-34f5e171dcbd_"
X-Originating-IP: [96.228.108.66]
From: Tommy Clark <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>,
Alexandra Droman
<[email protected]>,
Alexis Steinkamp <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, Ben Greenberg
<[email protected]>,
blythe gross <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, Dae-Jin Kim
<[email protected]>,
Doug Arthur <[email protected]>,
Dox Doxiadis
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
Haidde Sprague
<[email protected]>,
James Lee <[email protected]>, Jeff Dorman
<[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, "Jeff Lim (E-mail)"
<[email protected]>,
Jeff Moshman <[email protected]>, Karen Wolfe
<[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, keirabby
<[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, Kerry Levenberg
<[email protected]>,
Kim-Chi Steger <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, mike bell <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
Natalie Stange <[email protected]>,
karen wolfe
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
Rob Cliver
<[email protected]>, Sharon Lee <[email protected]>,
the Clarks
<[email protected]>, Ward Breeze <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>
Subject: N More THANKS
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 18:01:25 -0800
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Dec 2008 02:01:26.0088 (UTC)
FILETIME=[5B42CC80:01C96959]
X-Sonic-SB-IP-RBLs: IP RBLs sorbs-spam.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
