Jim Fenton wrote:
1. Minimal changes to the message.
2. Only allow modifications explicitly permitted by RFC2822.
3. Do not alter the semantics of the message.
4. Do not provide a reasonable opportunity for abuse.
[...]
the goal (well, mine at least) was to prevent abuse, not
necessarily to maintain semantics. Is that the right goal?
Depends on header vs. body, and maybe within the header on
unstructured vs. structured header fields (or on Subject: vs.
other header fields). For a structured header field a simple
strategy is "treat FWS as SP and remove any trailing SP".
For an unstructered header field (incl. the Subject) a simple
strategy could be "handle this like structured header fields".
Add some ad hoc solutions for qouted-pairs with CR, HT, and LF,
and it should survive all WSP-related mangling. For the body
it's of course much more interesting and very different. Bye