On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: >> >> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> Stefano Bagnara ha scritto: >> >> <snip> >> >> can we rewind a little >> >>>> - If the message have only newlines it seems mime4j ends up outputting >>>> headers with CRLF and body with LF. >> >> am i right in assuming that this is about using Mime4J for >> roundtripping via org.apache.james.mime4j.message.Message? > > It involve both reading and writing. > > In our specific case I record that we accept an LF as separator in headers, > but we take a CR as a char part of the header (while it is invalid). > > E.g: I would say that in the case of an isolated CR in headers we have 3 > options: > 1) consider it a newline > 1a) output it as-is when roundtripping > 1b) convert it to CRLF when roundtripping > 2) fail parsing (malformed message) > 3) use it as part of the header value. > > Now we do #3 and I think this is the worst solution. > I don't know if mime4j should support all of the 4 solutions above for a CR > (4 configurations seems too much to me) but I think we should discuss the > merit of each solution and decide what are the one we want to support.
i understand this argument. however, i still think we need to step back a little and gain some perspective. round tripping involves two distinct components. the parser parses the message into a DOM (Message) which is then written out. AIUI it is this complete cycle that results in the line ending inconsistency noted between the input and the output. is my understanding correct? - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
