-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 18
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Outlook Desktop does not parse the forwarded email #3
Comments
Hey! Do you have more information about the Outlook version / OS version? Furthermore, having the subject of the email would help me a lot. |
Yes, it is Outlook 2019 Windows Desktop. Sorry I cannot send an email. |
Outlook 2019 is definitely supported. With Outlook 2019, there's no way to distinguish a forwarded email from a regular replied email (there's no separator). |
so I did, but it did not work all times. |
Ok, can you share the body + the subject of a failed detection? I'll investigate on my side. |
It is above, but I can copy it down here
I dont know if it is important, but the body came as base64 (Outlook 2019 does this) and then we parse the SMTP email and convert it (using mailparser library). Btw, I'm using |
The base64 is not important, as long as you base the decoded body. |
It is there. It is "Pressing matter". |
No, this is the original subject. |
it is Fw: Pressing matter. But then I tested it with sending the root subject, and it worked! Even removing the additional bar that I added as workaround. So I think that was it. Thanks! |
Yes, passing this "Fw: Pressing matter" subject improves the detection in the case of Outlook 2019. |
Hi
We have this email that comes forwarded from Outlook Desktop, and the library does not parse it.
This is the email (one peculiarity is the body is sent in base64) as smtp.
Decoded is:
NOTE: I had to fake the email and the base64, so in theory it does work.
After some tests and playing around with the text, I was able to workaround this by adding a __ separator at the beginning, kind of tricking the library so it can parse it.
This would be how it would work, but obviously we want to try to avoid this minor hacks.
Can a fix be possible (so we don't have to add the workaround)?
Thanks!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: