Re: [Evolution] Error fetching message info: unknown body response

[Josh <yyaziiq5v use startmail com>]

Milan

Server responses are not redacted, only message header values were removed.
My question still stands: Thunderbird can read the folder and I can 
attempt to repair it.
Which email is corrupted? 1717 or 1718?

BTW, I found that Boxer for Android stops on the same message.

However, based on Thunderbird behavior - is it possible to make 
something to ignore invalid response and keep processing emails?

Regards,
Josh.

On 10/30/18 03:50, Milan Crha via evolution-list wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-10-29 at 20:33 +0100, Ángel wrote:
> > Milan: this can be easily extracted using uudecode(1), which is
> > provided by the sharutils package[1]
>         Hi,
> thanks. That might be it, I do not have it installed. I've been sure
> there is some simple tool for it, but I've been also too lazy. My
> fault.
>
>  From the log:
> | [imapx:B] I/O: 'B00412 UID FETCH 1717:1793 (RFC822.SIZE RFC822.HEADER FLAGS)'
>
> Here, the IMAPx asked for the basic information for some messages and
> it received:
>
> | [imapx:B] I/O: '* 1717 FETCH (RFC822.SIZE 2817 RFC822.HEADER {1183}
> |  FLAGS (\Seen) UID 1717)
>
> for the first of them and the below for the second. I do not know how
> much the log is redacted, but if the above is an unchanged response,
> then it's wrong, because "RFC822.HEADER {1183}" means that "there will
> be RFC822.HEADER whose size is 1183 bytes", but the long didn't show a
> single bit from it, like in the second message response (below), which
> begun with "Received:" header and continued. If the above is really
> what the server returned, then the problem is with the server returning
> invalid response for one of the messages. I do not think
> evolution/IMAPx can do anything about it.
>
> | * 1718 FETCH (RFC822.SIZE 8116 RFC822.HEADER {1256}
> | Received:
> | Received:
> | .....
>
> Just in case, I suppose you edited the log and removed values for the
> headers, right? That's perfectly fine, I only want to confirm that the
> second response was valid.
>         Bye,
>         Milan