tags 507431 - moreinfo unreproducible quit
Dear Noèl, thank you for following up on my report¹. Am Samstag, den 10.04.2010, 22:48 +0200 schrieb Noèl Köthe: […] > I checked your submitted email header http://bugs.debian.org/507431 and > it looks like the sent email didn't had the Date: and it was added at > the recipient/by your evolution. > The date should be the date of the sender but chronological its after > all Received: timestamps. > Additional the Date: line is after the X-Evolution-Source: line which is > written at the sender/your evolution so this is a sign for > later/recipient Date: > > Could you reproduce this with the sender and/or could you agree with my > arguments? Your theory sounds reasonable. I would never have thought about that. An other point supporting your theory is that the Date timestamp is bigger than the received by timestamps. You tagged this bug unreproducible. Did you try to import my inlined email? I can still reproduce this bug. I forgot to note that this is happening with an IMAP account. I therefore removed the tag »unreproducible« again. Just a note. The sender uses the O2 mail service with the MUA O3SIS UMA Mail 7.1.0 Cologne Edition. Anyway I glanced through RFC #822 [1] and RFC #2822 [2] and `Date` is required. So the MUAs do not comply with the standard. Regarding the order of the header fields I found the following in [1]. 4. MESSAGE SPECIFICATION 4.1. SYNTAX Note: Due to an artifact of the notational conventions, the syn- tax indicates that, when present, some fields, must be in a particular order. Header fields are NOT required to occur in any particular order, except that the message body must occur AFTER the headers. It is recommended that, if present, headers be sent in the order "Return- Path", "Received", "Date", "From", "Subject", "Sender", "To", "cc", etc. This specification permits multiple occurrences of most fields. Except as noted, their interpretation is not specified here, and their use is discouraged. So Evolution tries to make the message standard compliant by adding a `Date` field. But it should display it correctly when doing so. Anyway in my case I am using Exim as MTA and reading [3] suggests that Exim is adding `Delivery-date` header field when no `Date` header field is present. So there is definitely an error in Evolution because as noted when replying the date is taken “correctly” from the `Delivery-date` header field. I searched the GNOME Bugzilla but could not find a report containing `Delivery-Date`. If you could not reproduce it it is maybe a bug in the Evolution IMAP code. Evolution 2.30 has not yet entered Sid/unstable so I could not yet try with the latest release. I think, I read the IMAP code has changed quite a bit. Thanks, Paul ¹ To preserve threading when replying to bug reports you do not have the original messages from you can get them using `bts show --mbox 507431` and import that mbox file (in `~/.dev-scripts/bts/`) to your MUA (for example Evolution). [1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc0822.txt [2] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2822.txt [3] http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.feedback.thunderbird/browse_thread/thread/660e4120fdd46064/5a8ee00b236f52b0 [4] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/browse.cgi?product=Evolution
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil