[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Length Limit for display-name



On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Ned Freed <ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> For example, qmail-remote, and gateways when
>> passing a message to another server. Here
>> I thought the To: header being within the message they would not touch
>> it, or parse it and just pass it on, so
>> that "trace fields are prepended to the message" (A.4 in the Appendix )

> Dream on. That's not how things work in th real world. Lots of intermediaries
> perform all sorts of processing of header fields. The legality or illegality of
> doing this is mostly irrelevant, since you have to deal with what's out there,
> not what the standards-writers hoped would be out there, but even then,
> specific header modifications are specifically condoned by vaiorus standards,
> e.g., MIME downgrading.

> In the specific case of To: fields, an obvious one is for submission servers to
> rewrite addresses to eliminae short form names and other local crap.
> The answer is no, you cannot count on it.
>
>> I would think only
>> the total email length limit would come
>> into play, which is usually pretty large (measured in MB)
>
> Again, you're dreaming if you think this is true.

Alright, let's look at an alternative to what I'm trying to do.

How is it with using Optional Fields (section 3.6.8). Are they safewith respect
to "intermediaries perform[ing] all sorts of processing of header fields"?

Stephan

>>                                Ned
>



-- 
Stephan Wehner

-> http://stephan.sugarmotor.org (blog and homepage)
-> http://loggingit.com
-> http://www.thrackle.org
-> http://www.buckmaster.ca
-> http://www.trafficlife.com
-> http://stephansmap.org -- http://blog.stephansmap.org
-> http://twitter.com/stephanwehner / @stephanwehner