On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 19:52 +0100, Stefano Bagnara wrote: > 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! >
Lukáš Alternatively you can always use a custom field parser as well Oleg > 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 > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >>
