Hello Paul, Am Sonntag, den 11.04.2010, 13:26 +0200 schrieb Paul Menzel:
> > 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. Yes. Thats what i meant with my second sentence. > 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. You can reproduce this with the mentioned email or are you getting new emails from time to time with the same problem? > 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. I aggree with you that the sending MUA is doing it wrong. > 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. OK. > 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. So the problem we both see is: - when a sender is not rfc-compliant and don't add a Date: line - we guess evolution adds the missing Date: line - but doing this wrong because after the addition to the header its still not shown in evolution I will report this upstream to see what the developers say. > 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). I have hear about this ;) but because im working on all the old bugs I used URLs so the reporter will find everything and not just my quoting. -- Noèl Köthe <noel debian.org> Debian GNU/Linux, www.debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil