Re: [mailop] Thoughts on envelope address local-part length limits

2023-05-15 Thread Slavko via mailop
Dňa 15. mája 2023 17:09:17 UTC používateľ Brandon Long via mailop napísal: >The full namespace is also not available, our experience was that relying >on case in that portion of the >address was problematic, as there were many systems who would lowercase the >address before using it. While my

Re: [mailop] Thoughts on envelope address local-part length limits

2023-05-15 Thread Brandon Long via mailop
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 12:44 PM John Levine via mailop wrote: > It appears that Bill Cole via mailop < > mailop-20160...@billmail.scconsult.com> said: > >On 2023-05-12 at 09:40:14 UTC-0400 (Fri, 12 May 2023 13:40:14 +) > >Paul Gregg via mailop > >is rumored to have said: > > > >> I suspect

Re: [mailop] Thoughts on envelope address local-part length limits

2023-05-15 Thread Tobias Herkula via mailop
ind of bad behavior. / Tobias -Original Message- From: mailop On Behalf Of Slavko via mailop Sent: Monday, May 15, 2023 2:39 PM To: mailop Subject: Re: [mailop] Thoughts on envelope address local-part length limits Dňa 15. mája 2023 7:44:07 UTC používateľ Tobias Herkula via

Re: [mailop] Thoughts on envelope address local-part length limits

2023-05-15 Thread Steve Atkins via mailop
> On 14 May 2023, at 18:03, Paul Gregg via mailop wrote: > > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 05:54:28PM +, Slavko via mailop wrote: >> Dňa 12. mája 2023 13:40:14 UTC používateľ Paul Gregg via mailop >> napísal: >> >>> 4.5.3.1. Size Limits and Minimums >> >> When you read RFC, you MUST read

Re: [mailop] Thoughts on envelope address local-part length limits

2023-05-15 Thread Slavko via mailop
Dňa 15. mája 2023 7:44:07 UTC používateľ Tobias Herkula via mailop napísal: >Be careful with references to Postels robustness principle and look into that >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-iab-protocol-maintenance (formally >known as "postel-was-wrong") >And if you reference

Re: [mailop] Thoughts on envelope address local-part length limits

2023-05-15 Thread Tobias Herkula via mailop
12, 2023 7:54 PM To: mailop Subject: Re: [mailop] Thoughts on envelope address local-part length limits Dňa 12. mája 2023 13:40:14 UTC používateľ Paul Gregg via mailop napísal: >4.5.3.1. Size Limits and Minimums When you read RFC, you MUST read all, not only interesting parts. Yes, s

Re: [mailop] Thoughts on envelope address local-part length limits

2023-05-14 Thread John Levine via mailop
It appears that Paul Gregg via mailop said: >My original question was if the 64 octet limit is pointless now. >Seems like it is. No, not quite. One time I asked Ned Freed why the Oracle MTA he supported, which is widely used in corporate systems, enforced those limits. He told me that it was

Re: [mailop] Thoughts on envelope address local-part length limits

2023-05-14 Thread Paul Gregg via mailop
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 05:54:28PM +, Slavko via mailop wrote: > Dňa 12. mája 2023 13:40:14 UTC používateľ Paul Gregg via mailop > napísal: > > >4.5.3.1. Size Limits and Minimums > > When you read RFC, you MUST read all, not only interesting parts. > Yes, sometime it is hard, but

Re: [mailop] Thoughts on envelope address local-part length limits

2023-05-12 Thread Bill Cole via mailop
On 2023-05-12 at 16:52:38 UTC-0400 (Fri, 12 May 2023 13:52:38 -0700) Brandon Long via mailop is rumored to have said: On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 8:54 AM Bill Cole via mailop wrote: On 2023-05-12 at 09:40:14 UTC-0400 (Fri, 12 May 2023 13:40:14 +) Paul Gregg via mailop is rumored to have

Re: [mailop] Thoughts on envelope address local-part length limits

2023-05-12 Thread Brandon Long via mailop
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 8:54 AM Bill Cole via mailop wrote: > On 2023-05-12 at 09:40:14 UTC-0400 (Fri, 12 May 2023 13:40:14 +) > Paul Gregg via mailop > is rumored to have said: > > > I suspect with verp/bounce addressing widely in use now, 64 octets > > just > > isn't enough these days. >

Re: [mailop] Thoughts on envelope address local-part length limits

2023-05-12 Thread John Levine via mailop
It appears that Bill Cole via mailop said: >On 2023-05-12 at 09:40:14 UTC-0400 (Fri, 12 May 2023 13:40:14 +) >Paul Gregg via mailop >is rumored to have said: > >> I suspect with verp/bounce addressing widely in use now, 64 octets >> just isn't enough these days. > >Hogwash. 64 mail-safe

Re: [mailop] Thoughts on envelope address local-part length limits

2023-05-12 Thread Slavko via mailop
Dňa 12. mája 2023 13:40:14 UTC používateľ Paul Gregg via mailop napísal: >4.5.3.1. Size Limits and Minimums When you read RFC, you MUST read all, not only interesting parts. Yes, sometime it is hard, but notice the sentence in this section: Every implementation MUST be able to receive

Re: [mailop] Thoughts on envelope address local-part length limits

2023-05-12 Thread Steve Atkins via mailop
> On 12 May 2023, at 14:40, Paul Gregg via mailop wrote: > > I'd like to start a discussion on folks opinions(*) on enforcing > Envelope Sender/Recipient local-part length limits. > > *opinions - because no mail operator seems to agree what it should be. > > For context, RFC5321 defines

Re: [mailop] Thoughts on envelope address local-part length limits

2023-05-12 Thread Bill Cole via mailop
On 2023-05-12 at 09:40:14 UTC-0400 (Fri, 12 May 2023 13:40:14 +) Paul Gregg via mailop is rumored to have said: I suspect with verp/bounce addressing widely in use now, 64 octets just isn't enough these days. Hogwash. 64 mail-safe octets is adequate for every domain to give a unique

[mailop] Thoughts on envelope address local-part length limits

2023-05-12 Thread Paul Gregg via mailop
I'd like to start a discussion on folks opinions(*) on enforcing Envelope Sender/Recipient local-part length limits. *opinions - because no mail operator seems to agree what it should be. For context, RFC5321 defines local-part (the bit of an envelope address to the left of the @ in an email