|
|
SOGo-Decline-Message.txt (5,997 bytes)
Return-Path: <attendee@remote.com>
Delivered-To: inviter@example.com
Received: from mail.example.com ([xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx::xx])
by xxx with LMTP
id xxx
(envelope-from <attendee@remote.com>)
for <inviter@example.com>; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 08:35:38 +0200
Received: from mail.remote.com (mail.remote.com [XX.XX.XX.XX])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by mail.example.com (Postcow) with ESMTPS id xxx
for <inviter@example.com>; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 08:35:37 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [XX.XX.XX.XX] (helo=xxx.remote.com)
by mail.remote.com with esmtps (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256
(Exim 4.94.2)
(envelope-from <attendee@remote.com>)
id xxx
for inviter@example.com; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 08:35:36 +0200
Received: from xxx.remote.com (XX.XX.XX.XX) by
xxx.remote.com (XX.XX.XX.XX) with Microsoft SMTP Server
(version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id
xxx; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 08:35:33 +0200
Received: from xxx.remote.com ([xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx])
by xxx.remote.com ([xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx]) with mapi
id xxx; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 08:35:33 +0200
From: Attendee <attendee@remote.com>
To: Inviter <inviter@example.com>
Subject: Abgelehnt: Termineinladung: "SUBJECT"
Thread-Topic: Termineinladung: "SUBJECT"
Thread-Index: xxx
Sensitivity: private
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2021 06:35:33 +0000
Message-ID: <xxxremotecome.com>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX]
x-pmwin-version: 4.0.4, Antivirus-Engine: 3.82.1, Antivirus-Data: 5.87
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_000_xxxremotecom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
ARC-Seal: i=1; s=dkim; d=example.com; t=1634625337; a=rsa-sha256;
cv=none;
b=xxx
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1;
mail.example.com;
dkim=none;
spf=none (mail.example.com: domain of attendee@remote.com has no SPF policy when checking XX.XX.XX.XX) smtp.mailfrom=attendee@remote.com;
dmarc=none
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=example.com;
s=dkim; t=1634625337;
h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id:
to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type;
bh=xxx;
b=xxx
X-Last-TLS-Session-Version: TLSv1.3
Authentication-Results: mail.example.com;
dkim=none;
spf=none (mail.example.com: domain of attendee@remote.com has no SPF policy when checking XX.XX.XX.XX) smtp.mailfrom=attendee@remote.com;
dmarc=none
X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-103.19 / 15.00];
SOGO_CONTACT(-99.00)[];
BAYES_HAM(-5.50)[99.99%];
AUTH_NA(1.00)[];
NEURAL_SPAM_LONG(0.50)[1.000];
NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(0.43)[0.850];
IP_REPUTATION_HAM(-0.41)[asn: 680(-0.40), country: DE(-0.01), ip: XX.XX.XX.XX(0.00)];
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED(-0.20)[XX.XX.XX.XX:from];
MIME_BASE64_TEXT(0.10)[];
MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[multipart/alternative,text/plain];
MX_GOOD(-0.01)[];
DMARC_NA(0.00)[remote.com];
MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+,1:+,2:~,3:~];
BCC(0.00)[];
RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1];
TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[];
FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[];
ARC_NA(0.00)[];
HAS_XOIP(0.00)[];
MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[];
TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[];
RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4];
ARC_SIGNED(0.00)[example.com:s=dkim:i=1];
RCPT_MAILCOW_DOMAIN(0.00)[example.com];
FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[];
R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[];
RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[];
ASN(0.00)[asn:680, ipnet:141.30.0.0/16, country:DE];
R_SPF_NA(0.00)[no SPF record]
X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: xxx
--_000_xxxremotecom_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
HERE IS THE COMMENT THAT THE ATTENDEE LEFT BUT DOES NOT SHOW UP IN SOGO
--_000_xxxremotecom_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-=
1">
<meta name=3D"Generator" content=3D"Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from rtf -->
<style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left:=
#800000 2px solid; } --></style>
</head>
<body>
<p>HERE IS THE COMMENT THAT THE ATTENDEE LEFT BUT DOES NOT SHOW UP IN SOGO</p>
</body>
</html>
--_000_xxxremotecom_
Content-Type: text/calendar; charset="utf-8"; method=REPLY
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
QkVHSU46VkNBTEVOREFSCk1FVEhPRDpSRVBMWQpQUk9ESUQ6TWljcm9zb2Z0IEV4Y2hhbmdlIFNl
cnZlciAyMDEwClZFUlNJT046Mi4wCkJFR0lOOlZUSU1FWk9ORQpUWklEOkV1cm9wZS9CZXJsaW4K
QkVHSU46U1RBTkRBUkQKRFRTVEFSVDoxNjAxMDEwMVQwMzAwMDAKVFpPRkZTRVRGUk9NOiswMjAw
ClRaT0ZGU0VUVE86KzAxMDAKUlJVTEU6RlJFUT1ZRUFSTFk7SU5URVJWQUw9MTtCWURBWT0tMVNV
O0JZTU9OVEg9MTAKRU5EOlNUQU5EQVJECkJFR0lOOkRBWUxJR0hUCkRUU1RBUlQ6MTYwMTAxMDFU
MDIwMDAwClRaT0ZGU0VURlJPTTorMDEwMApUWk9GRlNFVFRPOiswMjAwClJSVUxFOkZSRVE9WUVB
UkxZO0lOVEVSVkFMPTE7QllEQVk9LTFTVTtCWU1PTlRIPTMKRU5EOkRBWUxJR0hUCkVORDpWVElN
RVpPTkUKQkVHSU46VkVWRU5UCkFUVEVOREVFO1BBUlRTVEFUPURFQ0xJTkVEO0NOPUFUVEVOREVF
Ok1BSUxUTzphdHRlbmRlZUByZW1vdGUKIC5jb20KQ09NTUVOVDtMQU5HVUFHRT1kZS1ERTpIRVJF
IElTIFRIRVwsXG5cbkNPTU1FTlQgVEhBVCBUSEUgQVRURU5ERUUgTEVGVAogQlVUIERPRVMgTk9U
IFNIT1cgVVAgSU4gU09HT1xuXG4KVUlEOjQzOUMtNjE1OUVEODAtQi03NDcyNTAwMApTVU1NQVJZ
O0xBTkdVQUdFPWRlLURFOkFiZ2VsZWhudDogVGVybWluZWlubGFkdW5nOiAiU1VCSkVDVCIKRFRT
VEFSVDtUWklEPUV1cm9wZS9CZXJsaW46MjAyMTEwMjFUMTIxNTAwCkRURU5EO1RaSUQ9RXVyb3Bl
L0JlcmxpbjoyMDIxMTAyMVQxMzQ1MDAKQ0xBU1M6UFJJVkFURQpQUklPUklUWTo1CkRUU1RBTVA6
MjAyMTEwMTlUMDYzMjQwWgpUUkFOU1A6T1BBUVVFClNUQVRVUzpDT05GSVJNRUQKU0VRVUVOQ0U6
MApMT0NBVElPTjtMQU5HVUFHRT1kZS1ERTpMb2NhdGlvblwsIFNvbWV3aGVyZQpYLU1JQ1JPU09G
VC1DRE8tQVBQVC1TRVFVRU5DRTowClgtTUlDUk9TT0ZULUNETy1CVVNZU1RBVFVTOkJVU1kKWC1N
SUNST1NPRlQtQ0RPLUlOVEVOREVEU1RBVFVTOkJVU1kKWC1NSUNST1NPRlQtQ0RPLUFMTERBWUVW
RU5UOkZBTFNFClgtTUlDUk9TT0ZULUNETy1JTVBPUlRBTkNFOjEKWC1NSUNST1NPRlQtQ0RPLUlO
U1RUWVBFOjAKWC1NSUNST1NPRlQtRE9OT1RGT1JXQVJETUVFVElORzpGQUxTRQpYLU1JQ1JPU09G
VC1ESVNBTExPVy1DT1VOVEVSOkZBTFNFCkVORDpWRVZFTlQKRU5EOlZDQUxFTkRBUgo=
--_000_xxxremotecom_--
|
|
|
|
Hello, may we remind to this ticket, maybe to be solved in 5.3.0?
Since hiding answered texts in a calendar participant comment is a serious problem, we need to check each answer on another device (like the iPad displaying this text) in order not to lose any information.
There is a big difference between an invited participant just saying "No, I'm not taking part" (that's how I see it in SoGo) and also seeing the comment "Sorry, I'd like to take part, but can we postpone it for a week?" in addition to the automatic "No, I'm not taking part". Here, omitting the answer can be perceived as very rude. |
|
|
|
The message you attached has a multipart/alternative mime part. SOGo is properly displaying a single part (it prioritizes the text/calendar). The mailer should construct the message differently if the HTML part needs to be displayed. |
|
|
|
Hello and thank you for the answer. I understand your proposal but don't see a chance that "The mailer" (which is Microsoft Outlook via an Exchange server) will change the construction of the message. Is there a possibility to show both parts of the message by SOGo or give a warning message that there are non-displayed parts of a message? |
|
|
|
As side note to the quick reply of my boss: although SOGo ist correctly using the last mime part of an multipart/alternative message (as stated in RFC 2046), i think it could at least display the COMMENT-property, that is part of the base64 encoded text/calendar mail part in our example. It looks like its just displaying the DESCRIPTION-property at the moment. |
|
|
|
Very good point, I didn't notice the COMMENT property. I'll add support for it. |
|
