527441 - Use case for ITIP/IMPI invitation

Status: RESOLVED INCOMPLETE

(Calendar :: E-mail based Scheduling (iTIP/iMIP), defect)

Description

[Eric Valette]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.4) Gecko/20091028 Iceweasel/3.5.4 (Debian-3.5.4-1)
Build Identifier: 

source file for checking the behavior

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1.receive and outlok invitation 
2.accept it
3.look at the way outlook 2003 sees it
Actual Results:  
As an attachment but there is nothing to view in it.

Expected Results:  
No attachment.

Comment 1

[Eric Valette]

Attachment: Initial invitation (anonimized)

Comment 2

[Eric Valette]

Attachment: The response snet

Comment 3

[Eric Valette]

As in the screenshot attached with outlook invitation, the version of outlook is outlook 2003 SP3 (with office 2007 compatibility patch added but I do not know if it change anything with outlook 2003 vs outlook 2007 invitation handling).

If I send the response without checking the "outlook compatibility message", it appears as a calendar event but attached. You have to click on it to have a real effect on the recipient calendar.

I have then sent the reply with checking the "outlook compatibility message" and it seems to be better (excpet the UI bug that do not allow me to give anny explication for refusing an event and force me to send a separate mail!!!). Worse I have real case where when checking the box, the response is not understood but I'm currently unable to make a new simple test case.  I will have to wait until I get a real example and then try to anonimize content, mails address, ...

Beside, unfortunately the message mention outlook 2002/XP and not outlook 2003. 

So at first I wonder, if the message should not mention outlook 2003 also because it has nothing to do with outlook 2002 or windows XP after all (you can install office 2003 on XP as far as I know). I even wonder, if it should not only mention outlook 2007: "unless the recipient has an outlook version >= 2007 check this box).

Comment 4

[Eric Valette]

Note the use case for the non working case with the "outlook compatibility checked may require some time to get as I'm not sure my co-worker will bug me another time if I send an IMIP answer not understood. I'm affraid I'm already in their curiosity zoo as a strange beast using Linux...

Comment 5

[Eric Valette]

I used today lightning to answer an invitation that was sent with outlook 2007 and checked the outlook compatibility checkbox: the organizer complained about not being able to see the response. 

So for invitation send with up to 2003, I need to check the compatibility checkbox and for other I shall not. But when answering I have no clue about the version used by organizer! How can I know what software use the submitter before answering!!!!!!

Reading the source message, the outlook version is indicated: X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0. Why the hell not using this information automatically?

Comment 6

[Eric Valette]

So the main complains remain:
    - When outlook compatibility checkbox is unchecked; outlook 2000/2002/2003 see an attachment displayed as an ics file. You need to click on it to produce an action on the organizer agenda and this required accepting to update when exiting the windows that has been opened as the result of the click,
    - When checked, for simple case it works, I'm still waiting for more complex use cases with mailing list and attachment where is still does not work,
    - There is still not way to add any information for reason to refuse an invitation or attach a file,
    - outlook 2007 does not understand the message sent with box checked. I'm not even sure it works at all,
    - How do I distinguish between outlook version when replying. I receive both outlook 2007 and outlook 2003 invitation (in fact for 2003 its exchange server via CDO API),

Comment 7

[MarcoS]

I was a bit puzzled by this bug so I did some testing. 
On my WinXP box with TB 2.0.0.23 and Lightning 0.9 I replied to invitations from OL 2003 SP3 and 2007 SP2, both stand alone and OL 2003 SP2 on an exchange-server. De replies were processed by Outlook. The message needs to be opened but no need to fiddle with an attachment. Just opening in the reading-pane will do. 

There was no difference whether the checkbox was checked or not. That makes sense because it was meant for older versions of outlook. Outlook 2002 is part of the Office-XP suite and it has nothing to do with WindowsXP.
There is no attachment visual in Outlook when the checkbox is unchecked but it actually is there and looks good. At least in my case.

All in all it seems this bug is specifically related to Linux versions. 

Not being able to add information is a missing feature and not related to the other things you experience. I think this deserves a bug on its own account and I will file it today.

Comment 8

[Daniel Boelzle [:dbo]]

(In reply to comment #7)
> I was a bit puzzled by this bug so I did some testing. 
> On my WinXP box with TB 2.0.0.23 and Lightning 0.9 I replied to invitations
> from OL 2003 SP3 and 2007 SP2, both stand alone and OL 2003 SP2 on an
> exchange-server. De replies were processed by Outlook. The message needs to be
> opened but no need to fiddle with an attachment. Just opening in the
> reading-pane will do. 
> 
> There was no difference whether the checkbox was checked or not. That makes
> sense because it was meant for older versions of outlook. Outlook 2002 is part
> of the Office-XP suite and it has nothing to do with WindowsXP.
> There is no attachment visual in Outlook when the checkbox is unchecked but it
> actually is there and looks good. At least in my case.
Thanks for testing, Marco. Would be cool if you would give TB3/lightning 1.0pre a try, too! We have to check whether it's a regression.

> Not being able to add information is a missing feature and not related to the
> other things you experience. I think this deserves a bug on its own account and
> I will file it today.
Eric has filed that already some time ago, see bug 433848.

Comment 9

[Eric Valette]

(In reply to comment #7)
> I was a bit puzzled by this bug so I did some testing. 
> On my WinXP box with TB 2.0.0.23 and Lightning 0.9 I replied to invitations
> from OL 2003 SP3 and 2007 SP2, both stand alone and OL 2003 SP2 on an
> exchange-server. De replies were processed by Outlook. The message needs to be
> opened but no need to fiddle with an attachment. Just opening in the
> reading-pane will do. 

This is not what I see with my colleagues using outlook 2003 and an exchange server. I wonder if having an exchnage server installed change something to the behavior. Do you have one?

If you look at the eml file, you will notice that the vcalendar information seems to have been generated by exchange one way or other. And I confirm, if i check the box, colleagues only need to open the .ics file, if not they see and attchment and need to open it.

> 
> There was no difference whether the checkbox was checked or not. That makes
> sense because it was meant for older versions of outlook. Outlook 2002 is part
> of the Office-XP suite and it has nothing to do with WindowsXP.
> There is no attachment visual in Outlook when the checkbox is unchecked but it
> actually is there and looks good. At least in my case.
> 
> All in all it seems this bug is specifically related to Linux versions. 

Or due to the availability of an exchange server configured and accessed by outlook.

> Not being able to add information is a missing feature and not related to the
> other things you experience. I think this deserves a bug on its own account and
> I will file it today.

Comment 10

[Eric Valette]

Additional information: 

The reason I say this is the PRODID in the invitation sent: Microsoft CDO for Microsoft Exchange. Can you look at the PRODID in your test?

The version of outlook is: 11.8206.8221 identified as outlook 2003 SP3.

Comment 11

[MarcoS]

(In reply to comment #8)
> Thanks for testing, Marco. Would be cool if you would give TB3/lightning 1.0pre
> a try, too! We have to check whether it's a regression.
 
I tried TB3 today and Outlook reacted just the same. 

> Eric has filed that already some time ago, see bug 433848.

I'm sorry. I looked but didn't find one. Next time I will look further.

Comment 12

[MarcoS]

(In reply to comment #10)
> Additional information: 
> 
> The reason I say this is the PRODID in the invitation sent: Microsoft CDO for
> Microsoft Exchange. Can you look at the PRODID in your test?
> 
I’m not sure which PRODID you mean. 
In the original invitation the PRODID differs depending on the actual configuration. So for OL 2003 it is: -//Microsoft Corporation//Outlook 11.0 MIMEDIR//EN, OL 2007 sends: -//Microsoft Corporation//Outlook 12.0 MIMEDIR//EN and with an exchange server it is: Microsoft CDO for Microsoft Exchange. 
The replies as found in TB’s Send Items all have PRODID:-//Mozilla.org/NONSGML Mozilla Calendar V1.1//EN. There seems to be no difference between Lightning 0.9 and 1.0pre.
When you look at the replies in Outlooks inbox on an exchange server the PRODID has changed to :Microsoft CDO for Microsoft Exchange.
This is not the only thing that has been changed along the way.  

The reply I have sent looks more or less the same as yours.   
I noticed one or two small differences but have no idea if this means anything. 
To me it looks like the problem is at least partly on the Outlook/exchange server site. But I’m just a user when it comes to Outlook and have no idea about versions and configuration of exchange servers. 
Is it possible for you to get hold of the actual message your colleagues received in their inbox? Maybe there is a clue whether the problem is Outlook or Exchange server.


> The version of outlook is: 11.8206.8221 identified as outlook 2003 SP3.
In my case it is Outlook 2003 SP2 (11.6568.6568).

Comment 13

[MarcoS]

Attachment: reply generated by lighting 1.0pre on WinXP

Comment 14

[Eric Valette]

(In reply to comment #12)

> I’m not sure which PRODID you mean. 

The prodid attached in the initial invitation test message attached.


> When you look at the replies in Outlooks inbox on an exchange server the PRODID
> has changed to :Microsoft CDO for Microsoft Exchange.
> This is not the only thing that has been changed along the way.  

That is what I suspected.

> The reply I have sent looks more or less the same as yours.   
 
> Is it possible for you to get hold of the actual message your colleagues
> received in their inbox? Maybe there is a clue whether the problem is Outlook
> or Exchange server.

I attached what I actually sent. I'm rather confident exchange server does not modify it. I will check but not before Tuesday now. The way the initial vcalendar is composed may change if you have an exchange server or not, I would be surprised if it is the same for the reply as I use regular imap to talk to the exchange server.

> > The version of outlook is: 11.8206.8221 identified as outlook 2003 SP3.
> In my case it is Outlook 2003 SP2 (11.6568.6568).

This may also change the results.

Comment 15

[Philipp Kewisch [:Fallen] [:📆][:🧩]]

Eric, any updates on this? Could you retest with Lightning 1.0b1 or later?

Comment 16

[Eric Valette]

No. I can retest but as apparently nobody did care to check outlook 2003 with an exchange server, that delivers different invitation format than without an exchange server, why should it have changed. The only thing I have to add is that it does not work with outlook 2007 in eithr mode (checking or not the outlook xp)

I think the unconfirmed status just shows that nobody tried to reproduce it.

Comment 17

[Philipp Kewisch [:Fallen] [:📆][:🧩]]

As a measure to reduce the number of issues to a more manageable amount I am closing off this bug because it has been filed before 2010 and is still in the "unconfirmed" state and it has not recently been changed.

If this is still an issue, please test with the latest version of Thunderbird and Lightning and comment on the bug, I am happy to reopen it.

Thank you for your understanding!

Comment 18

[Eric Valette]

Fair enough. You let the bug open without looking at them and then close it for inactivity. Anyway, my company swicthed to a more recent exchange versionand the lighning code did some progress toot, so I do not care anymore

Comment 19

[Philipp Kewisch [:Fallen] [:📆][:🧩]]

Thanks for the update. Our team is fairly small so unfortunately it is not possible to look through each and every bug. We also don't have the setup to test each scenario, so we are also relying on community to help confirm bugs. I don't close bugs automatically often, but we are nearing 1000 unconfirmed bugs and I suspect that many of them are either no longer an issue because they have been fixed by another issue, or the reporter has moved on. If this is not the case then, as mentioned, I am happy to reopen the bugs given there is interest to move them forward.