> You rudely publicly accused me for releasing rumorse and I except at least > to give correct source and exact quotation. Please, carefully choose your > words, at least in public.
Sorry, but is very hard to understand you. You talk about missing XXencoding first. In next message you say about broken 'firts part' of message, now you are talking about duplicated boundaries inside message... each time you talk about something different! Please discuss each problem in different threads, otherwise I am really lost and I can understand your problems badly. Attached zipped (!) examples are allways good, but do not foget to explain what is bad in attached message. > Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 19:43:20 +0000 > "Also there is a problem in some multipart/alternate/mixed messages > created by MS Outlook Express, which always unhappy add extra lines. This > causing that Synapse cannot correctly decode first body part. Ok, what you mean by 'extra lines'? > I hoped it was clear where parser failed. In refered specific group of > messages, actual problem is nested raw message in it, deliberately > inserted by sender. Unfortunately, the first boundary marker was the same > as in original message! Here, your parser was confused on first boundary: Of course, because it violates RFC hardly! Boundaries are for identification of part begin and end. If boundaries are duplicated, then boundaries are for nothing and you cannot do hierarchial parsing correctly. This is really not a error in Synapse, it is error of software what generating duplicated boundaries. And this kind of error cannot be workarounded without other negative impacts. However your shorted sample in ne of previous mesages have not duplicated boundaries, as I see! Or I am missing something? > Correct parsing: > ---------------------------- > - multipart/alternative > - text/plain (with nested messages) > - text/html (with nested messages) > - application/zip file.zip > ---------------------------- You not wrote root multipart, right? > Theoretically, we could have 2GB message with nested many messages as well > as with messages as "attachments" - where some of it have the same > boundary marks. RFC's says that e-client need to create unique boundary > marks for each part. I doubt each e-cliant loose time to search content of > message body or attachments for boundary marks to avoid duplications > during creating. You are not right. E-mail clients not searching content for duplicated boundaries. it is not necessary. This condition can be solved very simply... just create good random boundary. For example, synapse using boundary with three parts: - constant (as protection against duplication by software what using same boundary structure) - encoded time information - encoded random information So, eachtime Synapse generate new boundary, it is unique, and cannot be used by some older part. -- Lukas Gebauer. E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WEB: http://www.ararat.cz/synapse - Synapse Delphi and Kylix TCP/IP Library ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ synalist-public mailing list synalist-public@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/synalist-public
