[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-332?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17987956#comment-17987956 ]
Tim Allison commented on MIME4J-332: ------------------------------------ It looks like this behavior came in at least as far back as MIME4j-109: https://github.com/apache/james-mime4j/commit/d6a2db21ef6aa60e97fef3a011706f3928679e81#diff-16e97c29caadd752f95477ac5167fc21394e02330cd1c2e59bfdb6886dca1f33R41 > Prevent concatenation of duplicate fields in ContentDispositionParser > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: MIME4J-332 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-332 > Project: James Mime4j > Issue Type: Task > Reporter: Tim Allison > Priority: Minor > > Over on https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TIKA-4447, [~g...@rhobard.com] > reported that content disposition fields were concatenating file names if > there were multiple file names. > Minimal reproducer in {{master}} in {{{}ContentDispositionTest{}}}: > {code:java} > @Test > public void testDuplicateFields() throws ParseException { > String s = "attachment; filename=\"bar1.rtf\"; filename=\"bar2.rtf\"; > filename=\"bar3.rtf\""; > ContentDispositionParser parser = new ContentDispositionParser(new > StringReader(s)); > parser.parse(); > assertEquals("bar1.rtf", parser.getParameters().get("filename")); > } > > {code} > With result: > {noformat} > org.junit.ComparisonFailure: > Expected :bar1.rtf > Actual :bar1.rtfbar2.rtfbar3.rtf > {noformat} > I'm not sure whether the "correct" behavior is to pick the first or the last. > It looks like Thunderbird picks the first. -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.20.10#820010)