On Fri, 2015-08-21 at 00:32 -0400, Bill Cole wrote:
On 20 Aug 2015, at 14:49, Joe Quinn wrote:
That said, header fields are likely never going to be long enough
for
what you currently have to be a performance concern.
(I was about to say it was impossible, but then I saw there is
On 21 Aug 2015, at 8:14, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Fri, 2015-08-21 at 00:32 -0400, Bill Cole wrote:
On 20 Aug 2015, at 14:49, Joe Quinn wrote:
That said, header fields are likely never going to be long enough
for
what you currently have to be a performance concern.
(I was about to say it
Am 21.08.2015 um 14:14 schrieb Martin Gregorie:
Its quite common to find large recipient lists in newsletters sent by
committee members in hobby or sports clubs. These clubs generally don't
have the time or expertise to maintain a listserv. The roles of
secretary and/or newsletter editor tends
On 21 Aug 2015, at 11:08, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Fri, 2015-08-21 at 10:47 -0400, Bill Cole wrote:
Your response is a non sequitur.
Why do you say that? You suggested using what look to be hard limits
on
the header's size, though admittedly large ones, which puts my
comments
entirely on
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 14:28:13 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 21.08.2015 um 14:14 schrieb Martin Gregorie:
I regularly get sent competition results sheets that your suggestion
would reject. A recent results sheet I received has 62 recipients
occupying 2336 characters. This is neither spam
On Fri, 2015-08-21 at 10:47 -0400, Bill Cole wrote:
Your response is a non sequitur.
Why do you say that? You suggested using what look to be hard limits on
the header's size, though admittedly large ones, which puts my comments
entirely on topic. You might not agree, but that's another matter
Am 21.08.2015 um 06:32 schrieb Bill Cole:
On 20 Aug 2015, at 14:49, Joe Quinn wrote:
That said, header fields are likely never going to be long enough for
what you currently have to be a performance concern.
(I was about to say it was impossible, but then I saw there is no
length limit on
