Hi Stefano, is there any workaround?
Regards, Lukas On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[email protected]> 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 <[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 > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >> > >>> > >> > >> >
