Subject:
|
Re: Posting problem with the web-interface!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 8 Jan 2000 21:25:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
392 times
|
| |
|
|
On Sat, 8 Jan 2000 07:00:45 GMT, mattdm@mattdm.org (Matthew Miller)
wrote:
> Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
> > http://info.internet.isi.edu:80/in-notes/rfc/files/rfc850.txt
>
> 850 is obsoleted by 1036.
Doesn't mean it's no longer relevant.
> > I'm confused as to why the lines are even *ever* chopped at 512 by *anyone*.
> > As far as I can tell, only the *command* lines of the protocol are limited
> > to 512 characters -- not the content of the posts. Is that right?
Ah, yes. That's right. That was the conclusion on ASR last time.
Typical misinterpretation.
> I think you are correct. 1038 doesn't seem to specify any limit. The
> Internet draft at
> <URL:http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-article-02.txt>
> 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
> seems to revolve around 1000 - CRLF; it's possible that the number they
> picked is completely arbitrary.
It sounds completely arbitrary. The only limit found commonly in the
wild is the 512 one.
Jasper
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Posting problem with the web-interface!
|
| (...) 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)
|
16 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
