On Wed, 2007-10-31, Mikel Lindsaar wrote:
For example:
Reply-To:
<1234-1234-1234-1234-1234-1234-1234-1234-1234(_at_)me-some-host-over-here(_dot_)org>
The library currently folds this line as:
Reply-To:CRLF
LWSP<1234-1234-1234-1234...blah-with-no-further-fold
Quoting RFC-2822:
2.1.1. Line Length Limits
There are two limits that this standard places on the number of
characters in a line. Each line of characters MUST be no more than
998 characters, and SHOULD be no more than 78 characters, excluding
the CRLF.
I would say that the above Reply-To is a good reason to take advantage of
the SHOULD and extend the line beyond 78 characters.
I also believe that the example of folding by the existing library is
accceptable and does not violate RFC-2822.
I saw one mention of doing this:
Reply-To: <1234-1234-1234-1234-1234-12\CRLF
LWSP34-1234-1234-1234
Actually, I think a strict parser would evaluate this by removing the CRLF
and then handling the LHS of the address as:
1234-1234-1234-1234-1234-12\ 34-1234-1234-1234
This is probably not what you want!
--
Bill McQuillan <McQuilWP(_at_)pobox(_dot_)com>