[MIME4J-140] MIME4J-57 is not practical in its limits and incorrect in its RFC interpretation

• Type: Bug
• Status: Resolved
• Priority: Major
• Resolution: Fixed
• Affects Version/s: 0.6
• Fix Version/s: 0.7
• Assignee: Markus Wiederkehr
• Reporter: mike bell
• Created: 15/Nov/09 07:57
• Updated: 01/Dec/09 20:50
• Resolved: 01/Dec/09 20:50

Description

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: <[e-mail]>
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: <[e-mail]>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="03df338b-5029-48d8-84e8-34f5e171dcbd"
X-Originating-IP: [96.228.108.66]
From: Tommy Clark <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>,
Alexandra Droman
<[e-mail]>,
Alexis Steinkamp <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
<[e-mail]>, Ben Greenberg
<[e-mail]>,
blythe gross <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
<[e-mail]>, Dae-Jin Kim
<[e-mail]>,
Doug Arthur <[e-mail]>,
Dox Doxiadis
<[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
Haidde Sprague
<[e-mail]>,
James Lee <[e-mail]>, Jeff Dorman
<[e-mail]>,
<[e-mail]>, "Jeff Lim (E-mail)"
<[e-mail]>,
Jeff Moshman <[e-mail]>, Karen Wolfe
<[e-mail]>,
<[e-mail]>, keirabby
<[e-mail]>,
<[e-mail]>, Kerry Levenberg
<[e-mail]>,
Kim-Chi Steger <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
<[e-mail]>, mike bell <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
Natalie Stange <[e-mail]>,
karen wolfe
<[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
Rob Cliver
<[e-mail]>, Sharon Lee <[e-mail]>,
the Clarks
<[e-mail]>, Ward Breeze <[e-mail]>,
<[e-mail]>
Subject: N More THANKS
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 18:01:25 -0800
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
<[e-mail]>
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.