Hi Romain,
thanks for the pointer - it sounds somehow familiar to what we
observed. Need to check though :)
Gruß
Richard
Am Donnerstag, dem 02.06.2022 um 09:17 +0200 schrieb Romain Manni-
Bucau:
> Hi,
>
> Did you try handling LITERAL+ capability (1)? I don't think we do as
> of
> today.
>
>
Hi,
Did you try handling LITERAL+ capability (1)? I don't think we do as of
today.
(1)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7888#:~:text=LITERAL%2B%20allows%20the%20alternate%20form%20of%20literals%20(called%20%22non%2D,are%204096%20bytes%20or%20less
.
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
Hi,
short update on this:
Collaborated with JL and exchanged some ideas via Slack.
We now tested James + Greenmail as mail servers to rule out any hard-
coded TCK assumption regarding James. Both fail with the same exception
/ issue on the same TCK mail:
Hi,
I spend some more time on the mail tck and got some additional
insights:
There is one specific mail from the TCK mailbox (test1, mail no. 9),
which breaks the current Geronimo mail impl. This happens, if you try
to bootstrap / setup the test mailbox before running the TCK according
ti their
