wasm-demo/demo/ermis-f/imap-protocol/cur/1600095122.22938.mbox:2,S

33 lines
1.4 KiB
Plaintext

MBOX-Line: From MRC at CAC.Washington.EDU Tue Jan 30 18:07:31 2007
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU>
Date: Fri Jun 8 12:34:38 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Correct BODY for this message?
In-Reply-To: <1161407087.33811170208340733.JavaMail.root@dogfood.zimbra.com>
References: <1161407087.33811170208340733.JavaMail.root@dogfood.zimbra.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.WNT.0.82.0701301758570.5652@Shimo-Tomobiki.panda.com>
There really is no "correct" answer since the message is truncated.
IMHO, the GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out) rule applies here. Given that
the MIME is invalid, what the IMAP server returns depends entirely upon
what amount of sense the IMAP server's MIME parser was able to make of the
message.
Here is what UW imapd returns (assuming that is newline is appended at the
end of the last line; as you have it it ends in the middle of a line):
* 1 FETCH (BODY ((("TEXT" "PLAIN" ("CHARSET" "Windows-1252") NIL NIL
"QUOTED-PRINTABLE" 0 0) "ALTERNATIVE") "RELATED"))
That is, UW imapd recognized the two levels of MULTIPART, that the
TEXT/PLAIN part has no content; and it implicitly closed the levels.
I would not criticize another server from reporting something different.
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.