Re: Exception handling

Hector Santos wrote:
> There are 20+ years in the making and years past attempts to go strict 
> (enforce by default) failed miserably in the support area.  Regardless 
> if it was just a few people, it created a 'surprise' and support cost. 
Yep. Everywhere I've worked, I wanted to reject mail that was missing 
the blank line (CRLF) between header and body. And everywhere I've 
worked, my employer mandated otherwise because rejecting such mails was 
a call generator. So, I've always implicitly inserted that blank line at 
the point where I encounter text that doesn't appear to be a header line.
That has it's problems, too. I had an issue with a legit corporate 
sender that added a malformed header line in the middle, before the 
From: and To: fields. Result was that people's filters didn't work.
I'm wondering, though, how many non-OSS companies will want to reveal 
what they do with invalid header lines. If my past experience is any 
guide, few will, since (as Hector noted) they're often part of the 
anti-spam strategy, and non-OSS companies don't like "revealing their 
secrets to the bad guys." Or something like that.
<csg>