[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-140?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12778111#action_12778111
]
Oleg Kalnichevski commented on MIME4J-140:
------------------------------------------
> Yes you are limited to 998 octets PER LINE, but you may FOLD as many 998
> octet lines as you wish.
> Technically it's 100% legal to have a 50 megabyte header value, as long as it
> is folded. (per 76 or 998 rules).
The document that deals with line folding is RFC822 [1]. I personally cannot
find any provision in the RFC that supports this claim. My personal
interpretation is that a header line can be folded to make it human readable
but the total limit of 998 still applies.
If this limit is absurdly low for real world messages, I have no problem
increasing it. But there is already a config parameter one can use to override
it.
Oleg
[1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc822.txt
> MIME4J-57 is not practical in its limits and incorrect in its RFC
> interpretation
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: MIME4J-140
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-140
> Project: JAMES Mime4j
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 0.6
> Reporter: mike bell
>
> I have begun playing with Mime4j for potential use in a software project.
> Very quickly I found a simple email (Which i can attach) which has about 30
> TO addresses. The default was to throw an exception
> Looking at MIME4J-57 the author has misunderstood the SMTP RFC 2821. Yes you
> are limited to 998 octets PER LINE, but you may FOLD as many 998 octet lines
> as you wish. Technically it's 100% legal to have a 50 megabyte header value,
> as long as it is folded. (per 76 or 998 rules).
> I think the limit chosen by default of 1000 is absurdly low - this should be
> 100000 minimum or perhaps even unlimited by default. There is something to be
> said for a sanity check option, for sure - but not one that is triggered so
> easily.
> I can also open somewhat related JIRAS if people find them of merit:
> 1. Documentation - defaults should be clearly stated in MimeEntityConfig
> javadoc. They are not
> 2. Bug - The javadocs for MimeEntityConfig claim mc.setMaxHeaderCount(-1);
> would defeat; this check. It does not (I worked around with Integer.MaxValue)
> 3. Design Question: Should the MimeTokenStream not have a public constructor
> that allows MimeEntityConfig to be fed. As it was I had to create my own
> subclass to access the protected constructor - is there a reason for this?
> Thanks
> Example header that blew stuff up (and I think we've all seen far far worse!)
> - The To line triggers this
> Return-Path: <tomxy...@hotmail.com>
> Received: from c.mx.sonic.net (c.mx.sonic.net [64.142.100.46])
> by eth0.a.lds.sonic.net (8.13.8.Beta0-Sonic/8.13.7) with ESMTP id
> mBT21U5h027864;
> Sun, 28 Dec 2008 18:01:30 -0800
> Received: from bay0-omc2-s13.bay0.hotmail.com (bay0-omc2-s13.bay0.hotmail.com
> [65.54.246.149])
> by c.mx.sonic.net (8.13.8.Beta0-Sonic/8.13.7) with ESMTP id
> mBT21QuA026548;
> Sun, 28 Dec 2008 18:01:30 -0800
> Received: from BAY117-W11 ([207.46.8.46]) by bay0-omc2-s13.bay0.hotmail.com
> with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
> Sun, 28 Dec 2008 18:01:26 -0800
> Message-ID: <bay117-w1177d87b46befe5606716bdd...@phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
> boundary="_03df338b-5029-48d8-84e8-34f5e171dcbd_"
> X-Originating-IP: [96.228.108.66]
> From: Tommy Clark <tomxy...@hotmail.com>
> To: <alayne.new...@thomson.com>,
> Alexandra Droman
> <alexandra_dorman_...@yahoo.com>,
> Alexis Steinkamp <lexil...@hotmail.com>, <asteink...@ameritech.net>,
> <att...@msn.com>, Ben Greenberg
> <bprofan...@hotmail.com>,
> blythe gross <muppetgirl1...@yahoo.com>, <bren...@mediamystic.com>,
> <cliverp...@hotmail.com>, Dae-Jin Kim
> <poly...@chollian.net>,
> Doug Arthur <dougs...@yahoo.com>,
> Dox Doxiadis
> <evdoxios.doxia...@gmail.com>, <doxia...@princeton.edu>,
> Haidde Sprague
> <haidee.spra...@gmail.com>,
> James Lee <jcl0...@hotmail.com>, Jeff Dorman
> <bub...@aol.com>,
> <jeffej...@gmail.com>, "Jeff Lim (E-mail)"
> <jeffreye...@hotmail.com>,
> Jeff Moshman <jmoses...@sonic.net>, Karen Wolfe
> <kaka_2...@yahoo.com>,
> <keira...@charter.net>, keirabby
> <keira...@cableone.net>,
> <kei...@yahoo.com>, Kerry Levenberg
> <ke...@levenbergs.com>,
> Kim-Chi Steger <kcste...@aol.com>, <lorna...@hotmail.com>,
> <mbel...@sonic.net>, mike bell <m...@gwava.com>, <myr...@aol.com>,
> Natalie Stange <nsta...@nyc.rr.com>,
> karen wolfe
> <ngocba...@yahoo.com>, <poly...@chol.com>,
> Rob Cliver
> <cli...@fulbrightweb.org>, Sharon Lee <weron...@yahoo.com>,
> the Clarks
> <bosud...@comcast.net>, Ward Breeze <wbre...@gunder.com>,
> <whosbar...@yahoo.com>
> Subject: N More THANKS
> Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 18:01:25 -0800
> Importance: Normal
> In-Reply-To: <bay117-w268e2179ddee877110af11dd...@phx.gbl>
> References: <c46c51bb0812281737i256ae8depebb851f79b54c...@mail.gmail.com>
> <bay117-w268e2179ddee877110af11dd...@phx.gbl>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Dec 2008 02:01:26.0088 (UTC)
> FILETIME=[5B42CC80:01C96959]
> X-Sonic-SB-IP-RBLs: IP RBLs sorbs-spam.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
