[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Malformed header - what would you do?

2005-07-19 17:30:07

Bruce Lilly wrote:

extension/user-defined (unlike 822, 2822 does not officially
distinguish the two distinct types) fields must conform to
the unstructured field restrictions on syntax, and that would
include the restriction on whitespace-only header lines.

Where do you see this in 2822 ?  I found... 

| unstructured    =       *([FWS] utext) [FWS]

...and that allows a trailing FWS.  It should be *WSP to avoid
a whitespace-only header line.  The "MUST NOT" for CFWS isn't
good enough, <unstructured> has no CFWS.

Is the software adding the 'X-SPAM-STATUS' line wrong
Does the software claim conformance with RFC 2822?  If so, yes.

I'm not convinced.  But so far nobody supported a s/[FWS]/*WSP/
cleanup in USEFOR.
                    Bye, Frank