[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-140?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12778171#action_12778171
]
Markus Wiederkehr commented on MIME4J-140:
------------------------------------------
No I don't think so. MimeEntityConfig#getMaxLineLen() should specify the
maximum number of characters a line may have in the raw message. This is
_before_ multiple header lines get unfolded into a single line by the parser.
An unfolded line may well be longer than this and I don't think we have a
configuration parameter for that.
> 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: <[email protected]>
> 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: <[email protected]>
> Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
> boundary="_03df338b-5029-48d8-84e8-34f5e171dcbd_"
> X-Originating-IP: [96.228.108.66]
> From: Tommy Clark <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>,
> Alexandra Droman
> <[email protected]>,
> Alexis Steinkamp <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
> <[email protected]>, Ben Greenberg
> <[email protected]>,
> blythe gross <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
> <[email protected]>, Dae-Jin Kim
> <[email protected]>,
> Doug Arthur <[email protected]>,
> Dox Doxiadis
> <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
> Haidde Sprague
> <[email protected]>,
> James Lee <[email protected]>, Jeff Dorman
> <[email protected]>,
> <[email protected]>, "Jeff Lim (E-mail)"
> <[email protected]>,
> Jeff Moshman <[email protected]>, Karen Wolfe
> <[email protected]>,
> <[email protected]>, keirabby
> <[email protected]>,
> <[email protected]>, Kerry Levenberg
> <[email protected]>,
> Kim-Chi Steger <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
> <[email protected]>, mike bell <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
> Natalie Stange <[email protected]>,
> karen wolfe
> <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
> Rob Cliver
> <[email protected]>, Sharon Lee <[email protected]>,
> the Clarks
> <[email protected]>, Ward Breeze <[email protected]>,
> <[email protected]>
> Subject: N More THANKS
> Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 18:01:25 -0800
> Importance: Normal
> In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
> References: <[email protected]>
> <[email protected]>
> 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.
