search for: rfc2822

i Cant compile piegeon hole from github with this feature: 2822.c -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/rfc2822.o *edit-mail.c:* In function '*edit_mail_set_cache_corrupted*': *edit-mail.c:1665:3:* *error: *too many arguments to function ' *edmail->wrapped->v.set_cache_corrupted*' (&edmail->wrapped->mail, field, reason); * ^* *edit-mail.c:* At top level: *edit-mail....

...Cant compile piegeon hole from github with this feature: > That's because this branch is based on master (v2.3). I created a rebased branch for v2.2: https://github.com/dovecot/pigeonhole/tree/vacation-to-header-ignore-envelope-2.2 Regards, Stephan. > 2822.c -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/rfc2822.o > > *edit-mail.c:* In function '*edit_mail_set_cache_corrupted*': > > *edit-mail.c:1665:3:* *error: *too many arguments to function > '*edmail->wrapped->v.set_cache_corrupted*' > > (&edmail->wrapped->mail, field, reason); > > * ^* &g...

...ssage-Id' and the other writes it as 'Message-ID'. Because of this, all the messages are forever different. All mail is delivered from postfix and will be in the future. But I'm asking which of these syntaxes is correct or if there is a right/wrong way of writing the headers? RFC2822 doesn't come right out and say it, but all the examples therein are "Message-ID". RFC 822 says they are all the same. Both?

I have this version with FIXME /* FIXME: If From header of message has same address, we should use that * instead to properly include the phrase part. */ rfc2822_header_printf(msg, "To", "<%s>", reply_to); This should be work ok? Or You must change something? 2017-07-20 15:51 GMT+02:00 Stephan Bosch <stephan at rename-it.nl>: > > > Op 20-7-2017 om 10:37 schreef Kacper Guzik: > > Hi i have similiar problem...

>RFC822 is HISTORIC: please refer to RFC2822 instead. > >While UTC is sufficient for human beings, but not necessarily accurate >for machines, because of the leap year adjustment. TAI is the You mean leap seconds, not leap years. Since 1972, UTC == TAI modulo some number of seconds. Leap Seconds are announced officially by the IER...

hi all how to parse such email string to a array: #-------------------------------------------- "joe black"<joe_1@joe_black.com> joe_2@joe_black.com, joe_3@joe_black.com #-------------------------------------------- seems emails from user input include various format. and i have to split them to a array. any idea? regards. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

...sts @ml = MailingList.find_by_identifier(@params[:id]) @messages = @ml.messages @headers["Content-Type"] = "application/atom+xml" @response.headers[''Last-Modified''] = @messages.last.created_on.httpdateunless @ messages.empty? minTime = Time.rfc2822(@request.env["HTTP_IF_MODIFIED_SINCE"]) rescue nil if minTime and @messages.first.created_on <= minTime render :text => ''Not Modified'', :status => 304 end end This works fine in development, but not in production. The funny thing is that taili...

...\r\n line endings, then run something like this: > cat testcase.txt | /usr/lib/dovecot/dovecot-lda -e -d '<username>' with a username recognized by your running dovecot installation. The header is 'Return-Path:', \r\n, two spaces, '<...>', \r\n According to rfc2822 folding rules, that should be valid - the Return-Path header allows CFWS at that location. The error message originates in lib-lda/mail-deliver.c in mail_deliver_get_return_address(), while the invalid character message seems to originate from one of several places in lib-lda/mail-deliver.c...

...gt;>> cat testcase.txt | /usr/lib/dovecot/dovecot-lda -e -d '<username>' >> with a username recognized by your running dovecot installation. >> >> The header is 'Return-Path:', \r\n, two spaces, '<...>', \r\n >> >> According to rfc2822 folding rules, that should be valid - the >> Return-Path header allows CFWS at that location. >> >> >> The error message originates in lib-lda/mail-deliver.c in >> mail_deliver_get_return_address(), while the invalid character message >> seems to originate from o...

I've had complaints from users about "MISSING_DOMAIN" in header fields and I've tracked it down to having "." in an unquoted display name. By my reading of RFC2822 (especially section 4.1) A N Other <a.n.other at somewhere.org> "A. N. Other" <a.n.other at somewhere.org> are legal, but A. N. Other <a.n.other at somewhere.org> is "obsolete", but should be supported by the server (no clients should do it). I think the...

What line separator do you use when composing emails? 1. \n 2. \r\n 3. \r Is there a ''official'' line separator for emails (rfc-document?)? What separator is the most compatible between Windows, OS X and Linux? -- Norman Timmler http://blog.inlet-media.de

Hello. We have currently set dovecot.sieve to insert the text "[SPAM]" at the beginning of an e-mail's subject when it's X-Spam-Score is above 80%. After we set our system as stated the following errors occur: 1) When an e-mail's subject contains control characters like [Ctrl+V|^V], dovecot.sieve terminates with an error and an e-mail is not able to be sent. When a MIME

...te: > Am 26.10.2017 um 12:20 schrieb David Zambonini: >> >> There seems to be a bug with RFC822 processing in ltmp proxying that >> doesn't >> quote local parts that, for example, contain spaces. > > Newer related RFCs are RFC 5321 and 5322. Typo, meant to say RFC2822, which they still supercede, not that the local-part spec has changed. :) > > [ ... ] > >> MAIL FROM:<test at testdomain.com>\r\n >> RCPT TO:<deemzed.uk+Junk E-mail>\r\n >> >> 501 5.5.4 Invalid.parameters\r\n > > That recipient address is total...

There seems to be a bug with RFC822 processing in ltmp proxying that doesn't quote local parts that, for example, contain spaces. director config: director_username_hash = %Ln lmtp_proxy = yes recipient_delimiter = + protocol lmtp { auth_socket_path = director-userdb auth_username_chars = auth_username_format = %Ln passdb {

...reply is *always* wrong > in a maling-list > I have checked the various Mailman options and have found this: Should the Sender header be rewritten for this mailing list to avoid stray bounces? Yes is recommended. and this is indeed set to 'Yes' The help for this option refers to RFC2822, amongst which is 'Reply-to'. As far as I can see this is the only other option in Mailman that even mentions 'Reply-To' and then only in a roundabout way. If it is DKIM that is adding the 'Reply-To', then this is beyond my control. What I will say is, Reindl, you are the...

...is disallowed in stead of unlimited. Default value remains four. * Fixed interaction of Sieve include extension with ManageSieve. It is updated to match new requirements in the draft include specification. Missing included scripts are no longer an error at upload time. * Updated RFC2822 header field body verification to exclude non-printing characters (RFC5322). Only Sieve actions that can create unstructured header values (currently enotify/mailto and editheader) are affected by this change. + Completed sieve-filter tool to a useful state. The sieve-filter tool...

...is disallowed in stead of unlimited. Default value remains four. * Fixed interaction of Sieve include extension with ManageSieve. It is updated to match new requirements in the draft include specification. Missing included scripts are no longer an error at upload time. * Updated RFC2822 header field body verification to exclude non-printing characters (RFC5322). Only Sieve actions that can create unstructured header values (currently enotify/mailto and editheader) are affected by this change. + Completed sieve-filter tool to a useful state. The sieve-filter tool...

************* eManager Notification ************** Recipient, Content filter has detected a sensitive e-mail. Destination mailbox(es): "samba@samba.org" ******************* End of message ******************* -------------- next part -------------- Received: from 208.8.92.167 by jupiter.INSIDEAI.COM (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Sun, 19 Oct 2003 14:55:27 -0400 Received: from

...something like this: > > cat testcase.txt | /usr/lib/dovecot/dovecot-lda -e -d '<username>' > with a username recognized by your running dovecot installation. > > The header is 'Return-Path:', \r\n, two spaces, '<...>', \r\n > > According to rfc2822 folding rules, that should be valid - the > Return-Path header allows CFWS at that location. > > > The error message originates in lib-lda/mail-deliver.c in > mail_deliver_get_return_address(), while the invalid character message > seems to originate from one of several places in...

...case.txt | /usr/lib/dovecot/dovecot-lda -e -d '<username>' >>> with a username recognized by your running dovecot installation. >>> >>> The header is 'Return-Path:', \r\n, two spaces, '<...>', \r\n >>> >>> According to rfc2822 folding rules, that should be valid - the >>> Return-Path header allows CFWS at that location. >>> >>> >>> The error message originates in lib-lda/mail-deliver.c in >>> mail_deliver_get_return_address(), while the invalid character message >>> s...