Hi Oleg, thankx. I tried this and it looks like my pull request magically made it into the comment for https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-218
Cheers Wolfgang Am 03.10.14 um 10:31 schrieb Oleg Kalnichevski: > On Thu, 2014-10-02 at 19:37 +0200, Wolfgang Fahl wrote: >> Hi Oleg, >> >> Thank you for your prompt answer and advice. It worked beautifully from >> my point of view: >> https://github.com/WolfgangFahl/james-mime4j/blob/trunk/dom/src/main/java/org/apache/james/mime4j/message/BasicBodyFactory.java >> has a fix with my proposal as to make lenient Charset handling the >> default but at least switchable >> >> and >> >> https://github.com/WolfgangFahl/james-mime4j/blob/trunk/dom/src/test/java/org/apache/james/mime4j/dom/MessageCharsetLenientTest.java >> has a JUnit test that shows the modified behavior. It includes some 50 >> invalid Charsets i found in my sample of 1/4 million e-mail messages. >> >> As far as I can tell the changes don't break any other test. >> > Please raise a pull request in GitHub and post a link to MIME4J-218 > >> The relevant bug https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-218 >> is still marked as resolved. Shall I add a new one or are you going to >> reopen it? >> > I re-opened MIME4J-218. > >> With the fix above only 5 messages in my sample of 1/4 million emails >> can't be parsed by mime4j 0.8.0-SNAPSHOT. All errors are due to >> line size and header size issues. The repository above has further >> improvements on the handling of these MimeConfig settings. There seems >> to be a >> followup problem that the MimeConfig settings are not fully picked up in >> all situations. This gets visible when the exception messages has the >> current setting added e.g. >> as I did it in my changes. >> >> Example: >> mail<[email protected]>.err:org.apache.james.mime4j.MimeIOException: >> Maximum header length limit (20000) exceeded >> >> E.g. when setting the maxheaderlines parameter to 20000 there are still >> situations when an exception is thrown with the maxheaderlines parameter >> being 1000. So it's seems that the config is not used consistently but >> replaced by the default in certain circumstances which I'd still have to >> debug. Is this >> worth another BR? >> > If you have a reasonable reproducer please raise a JIRA and attach the > test case to it. > > Oleg > > > -- BITPlan - smart solutions Wolfgang Fahl Pater-Delp-Str. 1, D-47877 Willich Schiefbahn Tel. +49 2154 811-480, Fax +49 2154 811-481 Web: http://www.bitplan.de BITPlan GmbH, Willich - HRB 6820 Krefeld, Steuer-Nr.: 10258040548, Geschäftsführer: Wolfgang Fahl
