email.header.decode_header fails for the following message subject:
::

    email.header.decode_header('=?UTF-8?B?MjAxMSBBVVRNIENBTEwgZm9yIE5PTUlO?==?UTF-8?B?QVRJT05TIG9mIFZQIGZvciBNZW1iZXJz?==?UTF-8?B?aGlw?=')


If the directives are removed and the padding problems are fixed, the subject parses correctly.
::

    email.header.decode_header('=?UTF-8?B?%s==?=' % '=?UTF-8?B?MjAxMSBBVVRNIENBTEwgZm9yIE5PTUlO?==?UTF-8?B?QVRJT05TIG9mIFZQIGZvciBNZW1iZXJz?==?UTF-8?B?aGlw?='.replace('=?UTF-8?B?', '').replace('?', '').replace('=', ''))

Currently using the following workaround.

import re
import email.header

def decodeSafely(x):
    match = re.search('(=\?.*?\?B\?)', x)
    if not match:
        return x
    encoding = match.group(1)
    return email.header.decode_header('%s%s==?=' % (encoding, x.replace(encoding, '').replace('?', '').replace('=', '')))

Improved workaround to handle another degenerate case where the encoded string is in between non-encoded strings.

import re
import email.header

pattern_ecre = re.compile(r'((=\?.*?\?[qb]\?).*\?=)', re.VERBOSE | re.IGNORECASE | re.MULTILINE)

def decodeSafely(x):
    match = pattern_ecre.search(x)
    if not match:
        return x
    string, encoding = match.groups()
    stringBefore, string, stringAfter = x.partition(string)
    return stringBefore + email.header.decode_header('%s%s==?=' % (encoding, string.replace(encoding, '').replace('?', '').replace('=', '')))[0][0] + stringAfter

print decodeSafely('=?UTF-8?B?MjAxMSBBVVRNIENBTEwgZm9yIE5PTUlO?==?UTF-8?B?QVRJT05TIG9mIFZQIGZvciBNZW1iZXJz?==?UTF-8?B?aGlw?=')
print decodeSafely('"=?UTF-8?B?QVVUTSBIZWFkcXVhcnRlcnM=?="<info@autm.net>')

The following code seems to solve the first case just as well.  It seems that it is a problem of missing whitespace.

email.header.decode_header('=?UTF-8?B?MjAxMSBBVVRNIENBTEwgZm9yIE5PTUlO?==?UTF-8?B?QVRJT05TIG9mIFZQIGZvciBNZW1iZXJz?==?UTF-8?B?aGlw?='.replace('?==?', '?= =?'))

Note that none of your examples are valid encoded words, so given that email currently does strict parsing, the fact that it is not attempting to decode those words is technically correct.  

However, I agree that it would be better for it to do a "best guess" decoding of the invalid encoded words.

It should be possible to "fix" this case by simply replacing '?==?' with '?= =?' before decoding (blanks between encoded words are ignored when decoding, per the RFC, which the author of the package producing these invalid headers probably didn't realize).

See also #1079 and #8132.

I have to think about whether or not all of these can be considered fixes (based on Postel's law) or if tolerant parsing should be considered a feature request.  I'll probably combine these into a single issue at some point.

Out of curiosity, which email program is it that is producing these invalid headers?

2010/11/30 R. David Murray <report@bugs.python.org>:
> Out of curiosity, which email program is it that is producing these invalid headers?

I lost the headers for the original email, so I don't know which email
program created the invalid headers.

On searching for messages from the same address, it seems most of the
messages originate from a marketing company called informz.net, but in
rare instances there is a non-standard X-Mailer header:
- ColdFusion 8 Application Server (via JavaMail)
- IBM Lotus Domino Access for MS Outlook (2003) Release 7.0.2 September 26, 2006

Messages sent via informz.net generally parse correctly, so I am
guessing it might have been one of the X-Mailers above.