I can confirm that. No reject in the logs. I had to get him to send me
the reject that he recieved before i could start trying to figure out
what was wrong.
Thanks for your help Len.
Len Conrad wrote:
>
>>So 256 bytes is more acceptable then?
>
>
> in my experience, 99.99% of all mail headers fit in 256.
>
> 99.99% of spammers crap that piles up multiple addresses doesn't fit in
> 256, so it is an effective filter for that kind of abuse.
>
> if you're nervous about 256, make it 512. 100 Kb is totally unecessary
>
> btw, when I was tracking down the single situation, like yours, where a
> "valid" msg with 256+ TO: was being rejected, I could not find the reject
> in the maillog. Wietse confirmed that the reject and the reject text is not
> logged (but the rejected sender does see the 4xx msg).
>
> Len
>
>
>
>
> .
>
--
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
| Aaron Wookey
| IT Technician
|
Peter Symonds College
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: http://www.psc.ac.uk
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
