 | | Re: Posting problem with the web-interface! —Matthew Miller
|
| | | (...) I think you are correct. 1038 doesn't seem to specify any limit. The Internet draft at <URL:(URL) suggests 998 as a _minimum_ ("MUST") and lines of arbitrary length as recommended ("SHOULD"). I'm not sure where they got that number from; it (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Posting problem with the web-interface! —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | (...) Doesn't mean it's no longer relevant. (...) Ah, yes. That's right. That was the conclusion on ASR last time. Typical misinterpretation. (...) It sounds completely arbitrary. The only limit found commonly in the wild is the 512 one. Jasper (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Posting problem with the web-interface! —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) Obsolete: no longer in use or no longer useful. D'ya have a different meaning for obsolete than I do? (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Posting problem with the web-interface! —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | (...) In RFCs, yeah. 850 is obsoleted, but that doesn't mean there aren't still clients, or even transports, that still are compliant with 850 rather than 1036. Jasper (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
