Re: [art] not an erratum in RFC 6376, was Argh!!!! onto https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php

[John Levine <[e-mail]>]

It appears that Steffen Nurpmeso  <[e-mail]> said:
> |No, it's correct as is.
> |
> |The first bullet on page 16 says to unfold all the lines, so the CR/LF
> |are gone before it does anything with WSP.
>
>But *that* unfolding refers to exactly CRLF alone, because only
>this combination is allowed by RFC 5322.
>I .. now you make me a bit unsure, but i really think i did test
>both, removing lone CR and LF, as well as treating them literally.

Since unpaired CR and LF are not valid in a 5322 message, if you see a
message that contains one of them, you can do whatever you want. My
preference would be to have the signature fail since there is no
reason to expect that the other end will do the same thing you do.

We quite deliberately did not speculate about what one might do with
a block of text that is sort of like a 5322 message but isn't one.

R's,
John