We use davmail 6.2.2 with GLPI to collect mails and automatically create tickets.
They are using the library laminas-mail to communicate with IMAP servers.
We currently encounter an issue while fetching mails body :
The library use the fetch argument "RFC822.TEXT" to get mails body, which should return the same as "BODY[TEXT]" but doesn't.
I have tried to use this command using telnet :
NOTWORKING FETCH 1 RFC822.TEXT
Which return this :
* 1 FETCH (UID 106)
NOTWORKING OK FETCH completed
If we use this instead :
WORKING FETCH 1 BODY[TEXT]
The we get the expected output :
* 1 FETCH (UID 106 BODY[TEXT] {186}
<!DOCTYPE html><html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>test for davmail issue !<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>
)
WORKING OK FETCH completed
I have tried to do the same on a dovecot server, and I get the same output using both "RFC822.TEXT" and "BODY[TEXT]", and RFC3501 state those two arguments should be equivalent.
I have tried to fix the code of laminas-mail and it solve our issue on GLPI but I'd prefer to fix the issue here.
Could I propose a PR for this ?
0xNath
commented
5 months ago
Hello, thanks for this tool, it's very useful !
We use davmail 6.2.2 with GLPI to collect mails and automatically create tickets. They are using the library laminas-mail to communicate with IMAP servers.
We currently encounter an issue while fetching mails body :
The library use the fetch argument "RFC822.TEXT" to get mails body, which should return the same as "BODY[TEXT]" but doesn't.
I have tried to use this command using telnet :
NOTWORKING FETCH 1 RFC822.TEXTWhich return this :
If we use this instead :
WORKING FETCH 1 BODY[TEXT]The we get the expected output :
I have tried to do the same on a dovecot server, and I get the same output using both "RFC822.TEXT" and "BODY[TEXT]", and RFC3501 state those two arguments should be equivalent.
I have tried to fix the code of laminas-mail and it solve our issue on GLPI but I'd prefer to fix the issue here. Could I propose a PR for this ?
Best regards, Nathanaël.