> On 14 May 2023, at 18:03, Paul Gregg via mailop <mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 05:54:28PM +0000, Slavko via mailop wrote:
>> Dňa 12. mája 2023 13:40:14 UTC používateľ Paul Gregg via mailop
>> <mailop@mailop.org> napísal:
>>
>>> 4.5.3.1. Size Limits and Minimums
>>
>> When you read RFC, you MUST read all, not only interesting parts.
>> Yes, sometime it is hard, but notice the sentence in this section:
>>
>> Every implementation MUST be able to receive objects of at
>> least these sizes.
>>
>> I understand that these limits are not maximum which can be
>> used, but rather minimum which have to be supported. That
>> is shown in the same section latter:
>>
>> To the maximum extent possible, implementation techniques
>> that impose no limits on the length of these objects should be
>> used.
>>
>> It IMO clearly suggests to not limit these things.
>
> I'm not here to throw stones at semantic reasoning, but it is really
> difficult to read "The maximum total length of " to mean "support
> this at a minumum but feel free to blow way past it".
>
> My original question was if the 64 octet limit is pointless now.
> Seems like it is.
Likely, if you want to deliver wanted mail. As a postmaster or as
an email software developer that’s a big part of your job.
But given this issue was particularly visible because you completely
misread RFC 5321 - to the extent you think all email addresses start
with the “<“ character - and started rejecting a lot of entirely compliant
mail because of that misunderstanding you may want to wait a while
before doing any more RFC rules lawyering.
Cheers,
Steve
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
