Giampaolo Rodola' <g.rod...@gmail.com> added the comment: > It is not, but just seemed like good practice to advertise the limit in > EHLO and enforce it. My patch doesn't do a good job of enforcing it > since it enforces it before doing process_message. The problems with > 2518 and 1745035 are still there.
Then I doubt it would be a good idea, also because the following comment added in issue 1745035 should still stand: > The patch does not work as Giampaolo intends. If the patch were > applied as-is, no emails longer than 998 bytes could be sent. Personally I think there's no other way to gracefully solve this other than using a tempfile to store the data, but since I'm not a user of the module I'm going to let someone else comment about this. > RFC 5321 doesn't specify it must accept arguments, but I agree it is > a good idea. I'll work on that and submit a new patch. If there's no RFC which states that, then I would provide arguments for HELP *only* if that is a common practice amongst smtp servers. ---------- nosy: +josiah.carlson _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue8739> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
