no vote necessary IMHO, incresing sizes won't break existing implementations like reducing them would.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Peter M. Goldstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 15 August 2002 22:39 > To: 'James Developers List' > Subject: RE: sqlResources.xml - incorrect sizes > > > > Noel, > > I agree with the change. Just check the IMAP RFC before you set that > username size - we don't want to do this twice. If a vote is required, > consider this a +1. > > --Peter > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 2:32 PM > > To: James-Dev Mailing List > > Subject: sqlResources.xml - incorrect sizes > > > > According to http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2821.txt section 4.5.3.1 [Size > > limits and minimums], the maximum length for a user name is 64 > characters. > > We have room in the table for 50. Maximum length for a domain name is > 255. > > Maximum length for a path is defined to be 256. We don't leave enough > > room. > > Some places 200, others only 100, some even less. > > > > Proposed changes: > > > > change username to 64, 128 or 256 (SMTP only requires 64, what is the > max > > for IMAP?) > > change forwardDestination to 255 (RFC says the path size is 256, but > ...) > > > > Anywhere else where we hold an path (e-mail address), it should be > changed > > to 255, and anything that is a local part (e.g., alias, list name, > etc.) > > should be changed to match username. > > > > If this is agreed, I'll submit a [PATCH]. > > > > --- Noel > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:james-dev- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:james-dev- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
