> > Because the message is malformed, you can basically act > > however you want. A common philosophy is to be strict > > sending and lenient receiving. Thus unless you have a > > reason to do otherwise, you might want to allow the > > message to continue. > > While I generally agree with that philosophy, it is likely > to have limited success in extreme cases like this.
<snip> > IMO this is so broken that you are much better just > rejecting it. And logging it, and later, based on the log, > complaining to the sender that it needs to fix its > implementation. I don't necessarily disagree. I assume that within most parsers, it would depend upon how much token compliance verification you want to do for extension-header's header-name. And if header-name is non compliant, you'd need to decide which (or all) non token characters should cause the request to be rejected or response to be ignored. _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
