Re: Malformed header - what would you do?

On Fri July 15 2005 20:00, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> 
> Paul Smith wrote:

> > Is the software adding the 'X-SPAM-STATUS' line wrong
> 
> Not really, 2822 says about CFWS:
> 
> | However, where CFWS occurs in this standard, it MUST NOT
> | be inserted in such a way that any line of a folded header
> | field is made up entirely of WSP characters and nothing
> | else.
> 
> That's only about 2822-header fields, and not about the
> obscure X-SPAM-STATUS.

2822 covers the Internet Message Format, and specifically
notes that 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.

So, returning to the original question:
> > Is the software adding the 'X-SPAM-STATUS' line wrong

Does the software claim conformance with RFC 2822?  If so, yes.