Hi,

I'm reaching out here for assistance or guidance in regards to this unique issue I'm experiencing between my application and a client who is using Lotus Notes with Domino server 9.0.1 FP8. We have an application that uses Javamail API to send emails to clients and when a scheduled report is sent to this particular client that contains an attachment with over 50 characters long it is received on their end as ATTXXXXXX.dat (The X's are random numbers). They have a business requirement which requires the attachment names to be longer.

When sending to any other email environment and/or clients the attachment appears intact. This only began to occur when we upgraded from Javamail 1.5.2 to 1.5.5. Comparing the header information I can see that Domino appears to be breaking the content name into name*0 and name*1 when it gets renamed to ATTXXXXXX.dat. Not sure why it is doing this or if there is any fix on the Domino side? 

*************************
         WORKING
*************************

Content-Type: application/xls;
name="XLSReport that is over 50 characters longXLSReport that is over 50 characters long"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="XLSReport that is over 50 characters longXLSReport that is over 50 characters long.xls"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

************************************
GETS RENAMED TO ATTXXXXX.dat
************************************

Content-Type: application/xls;
name*0="XLSReport that is over 50 characters longXLS
"; name*1="Report that is over 50 characters long.xls"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename*0="XLSReport that is over 50 characters longXLS
"; filename*1="Report that is over 50 characters long"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

 

The client has logged cases to IBM but unfortunately have been unsuccessful in receiving a fix or resolution (They were advised to update their environment/ Set TNEFEnableConversion=1 on the Notes.ini file). We have explored many different options on our end too in terms of finding a solution for this client but unfortunately have not had much success. We suspect it perhaps is an issue with RFC2231 compliance. As mentioned in the following IBM Notes article it states RFC2231 compliance is provided in FP9. https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSKTWP_9.0.1/fram_what_new_FP9_r.html 

 

Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks.