Forwarded mails with attachments in Sent folder are broken

[padde]

Copies of forwarded mails with attachments in Sent folders that have been forwarded and uploaded to the Sent folder by RoundCube are broken.

They can neither be opened by RoundCube itself, nor by Thunderbird. They are shown as "empty", but header information is correct. When looking at the "source code" of the mail, everything is there.

I think I pinned it down to the following:

While in the instance of the mail that actually went out to the receiver (which is ok), the end of the header part / beginning of the message part looks like this:

[...]
User-Agent: RoundCube Webmail
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="=_75f40560ba7c648b0afb809a04fc6747"

--=_75f40560ba7c648b0afb809a04fc6747
[...]

but in the instance of the mail that RoundCube stores in the Sent folder, that part looks as follows:

[...]
User-Agent: RoundCube Webmail
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="=_75f40560ba7c648b0afb809a04fc6747";
	boundary="=_65fdf733e884d69076bd34c0a5072c9a"

--=_65fdf733e884d69076bd34c0a5072c9a
[...]

The string '75f40560ba7c648b0afb809a04fc6747' cannot be found anywhere else in the mail.

How to reproduce:

• Forward an email with attachment to yourself with RoundCube
  
• Check the mail in the Sent folder - it shows up "blank"

[alec]

Please check svn-trunk version. It was fixed.

[padde]

Just checked. It's indeed fixed in SVN.

Thanks!

[chris eveleigh]

i'm still getting this behaviour with 0.2.1 on Fedora 10.

can you (alec) say which changeset contained the fix for this so i can see if we've got that?

cheers.

[alec]

You get this for newly created messages? I can't say which changeset it was, but you should check at least 0.2.2. Don't reopen until you're sure it's not working for you in current svn-trunk release.

[chris eveleigh]

ah, sorry. wasn't sure of reopening protocol here. :-)

yes, it's newly created messages.

so does that mean 0.2.1 < 0.2-beta? i'm not meaning to be cheeky - just confused as to why the fix wouldn't be in 0.2.1 when it appears to have been fixed in SVN between 0.2 alpha and beta?

[till]

Best try trunk. :-)

[chris eveleigh]

oh how very embarrassing. i thought i'd upgraded from 0.2-alpha to 0.2.1 .. turns out i'd set up the test site but never actually switched over after testing.

a thousand apologies. can confirm it's working beautifully in 0.2.1. many thanks for the super-fast responses and the ace product.

*runs away and hides*