At 08:43 15/07/2005, Adam M. Costello wrote:
Paul Smith <paul(_at_)pscs(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> wrote:
Your software is correct, and the Microsoft software is incorrect.
That was my feeling ;)
> Is the software adding the 'X-SPAM-STATUS' line wrong (ie is it
> allowed to have FWS at the end of a line and put a CRLF before that
> final FWS)?
That software is wrong according to RFC-2822, which is only four years
old. It forbids the creation of messages containing whitespace-only
lines in the header, but still requires all parsers to handle them
properly, because they were valid under RFC-822.
Ah, I've just found that in section 3.2.3 - I'd been studying section 2.2.x
madly looking for something saying that, but couldn't find it (otherwise,
I'd probably not have asked the question here)
> What would you do? Is our software wrong?
Your software is not wrong to simply add a header field. One thing
you might consider is to first repair the header by removing all
whitespace-only lines, or just whitespace-only lines at the end of the
header, if that's easier. In general, mucking with somebody else's
headers is a no-no and is dangerous, but this would just be a form of
refolding (which is supposed to be safe) for the purpose of making the
message more conformant to RFC-2822, so it's probably justifiable (in my
opinion).
Yep - now I've found that bit in section 3.2.3 of RFC 2822, I'll probably
strip out any whitespace only header lines (with an option to leave them
in, in case it causes problems for someone for some odd reason..)
Thanks for the pointers.
Paul VPOP3 - Internet Email Server/Gateway
support(_at_)pscs(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk http://www.pscs.co.uk/