On 21 Aug 2015, at 8:14, Martin Gregorie wrote: > On Fri, 2015-08-21 at 00:32 -0400, Bill Cole wrote: >> On 20 Aug 2015, at 14:49, Joe Quinn wrote: >> >>> That said, header fields are likely never going to be long enough >>> for >>> what you currently have to be a performance concern. >>> >>> (I was about to say it was impossible, but then I saw there is no >>> length limit on headers: >>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2721605/maximum-size-of-email-x- >>> headers) >> >> On the other hand, there's no discernible downside to putting >> generous hard limits outside of (and ahead of) SA for standard >> headers. No matter what the RFCs say, sending mail with 600-byte From >> or Subject headers is not something people who are worth >> communicating with do intentionally and it can be very cheap to >> reject such junk before SA sees it. >> > At most this deserves the possibility of writing rules that fire on the > number of recipients of an e-mail. Any default rule, especially with a > limit as low as 600 characters will do more harm than good. For > instance, "Martin Gregorie <mar...@gregorie.org>," is 39 characters and > is not unusually long for a mail address. Judging by this, your > criterion would treat any list with more than about 15 recipients as > over-long and well out of order.
Read what I wrote more carefully. Your response is a non sequitur.
