2011/12/16 Lukáš Vlček <[email protected]>: > Hi Stefano, > > is there any workaround?
It is already fixed in trunk. So the workaround is using a recent snapshot! Stefano > 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 >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>
