I guess this is a bug in 0.7.1: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-208
Stefano 2011/12/16 Lukáš Vlček <[email protected]>: > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>: >>> > 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 <[email protected]> >>> 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 <[email protected] >>> >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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>
