236917 - Connexion closed by network firewall when pop3 server doesn't recognize command

Status: RESOLVED EXPIRED

(Thunderbird :: Mail Window Front End, defect)

Description

[Julien PERCHOUX]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; fr; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040206 Firefox/0.8
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; fr; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040206 Firefox/0.8

When using Thunderbird 0.5 through a network I can't download any mail, the
status bar displays "connected to server, sending loging information".
No further error message never appears. The Thunderbird symbol on the top right
corner don't even turn.
Using Telnet, I've discovered that my network firewall disconnect to pop server
when the pop3 server answer to a command is "-err expecting APOP or USER
command", just at the beginning of the connexion. It happens when the command is
"CAPA" or "AUTH".
At home, TB 0.5 works fine and using telnet, I've checked that
  -  My pop3 server don't like "CAPA"
  -  I can go on after the answer "-err expecting APOP or USER command" with
usual commands "USER" and "PASS".
It would be nice if TB allows to choose a full POP3 protocole or a "light" POP3
protocole to avoid network firewall bad stuffs.

Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1.Install Thunderbird on a network connected PC.
2.Configure a pop account which pop3 server desn't like exotic pop commands
(like "CAPA")
3.Try to download mails from pop server through the firewall 

Actual Results:  
Nothing, the Thunderbird symbol on the top right corner don't even turn.
The status bar displays "connected to server, sending loging information".

Expected Results:  
A lots of message downloaded.

Comment 1

[Julien PERCHOUX]

Here is the copy of the log of a connexion attempt.


Sender       Protocole   Text

{me}		TCP	3095 > pop3 [SYN] Seq=0 Ack=0 Win=64512 Len=0 MSS=1460

{free}		TCP	pop3 > 3095 [SYN, ACK] Seq=0 Ack=1 Win=8760 Len=0 MSS=1460

{me}		TCP	3095 > pop3 [ACK] Seq=1 Ack=1 Win=64512 Len=0

{free}		POP	Response: +OK POP3 server ready           
<[e-mail]>

{me}		POP	Request: CAPA

{free}		POP	Response: -ERR expecting APOP or USER command

{free}		TCP	pop3 >3095 [FIN, ACK] Seq=7 Ack=96 Win=8760 Len=0

{me}		TCP	3095 > pop3 [ACK] Seq=7 Ack=96 Win=64418 Len=0

{me}		POP	Request: USER julien.perchoux

{free}		TCP	[TCP ZeroWindow] pop3 > 3095 [RST] Seq=96 Ack=3164889748 Win=0 Len=0

Note that TB 0.3 is working well through the network.

Comment 2

[Frederic Bezies]

A side effect of bug 219282 ?

Comment 3

[Julien PERCHOUX]

(In reply to comment #2)
> A side effect of bug 219282 ?

Possible if the patch proposed in this bug report has been added to the
following TB. The question is then how to delete it from the TB 0.6?

Comment 4

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

This is an automated message, with ID "auto-resolve01".

This bug has had no comments for a long time. Statistically, we have found that
bug reports that have not been confirmed by a second user after three months are
highly unlikely to be the source of a fix to the code.

While your input is very important to us, our resources are limited and so we
are asking for your help in focussing our efforts. If you can still reproduce
this problem in the latest version of the product (see below for how to obtain a
copy) or, for feature requests, if it's not present in the latest version and
you still believe we should implement it, please visit the URL of this bug
(given at the top of this mail) and add a comment to that effect, giving more
reproduction information if you have it.

If it is not a problem any longer, you need take no action. If this bug is not
changed in any way in the next two weeks, it will be automatically resolved.
Thank you for your help in this matter.

The latest beta releases can be obtained from:
Firefox:     http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/
Thunderbird: http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/releases/1.5beta1.html
Seamonkey:   http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/

Comment 5

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

This bug has been automatically resolved after a period of inactivity (see above
comment). If anyone thinks this is incorrect, they should feel free to reopen it.