No it bothers customers I see more and more.On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 06:22 -0800, Mark Crispin wrote:On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Timo Sirainen wrote:Well, personally I don't see a need for it. If you're sending message size in APPEND as a normal literal, the server can reject it immediately. So it would be useful for literalplus only.Yes, but shouldn't the client know that the server will reject such literals?I just think this is very similar to out-of-quota and other similar conditions and could be treated as being mostly the same problem. The capability would only prevent one specific case, and a case which I haven't before heard of being a problem to anyone.You all are also overlooking the question of *administrative* limits. SMTP's SIZE verb is an *administrative* limit, not a technical limit. I think that that we need something similar for IMAP.What non-technical reasons do there exist to limit it? For SMTP I think it's mostly to prevent abuse (intentional or accidental), but with IMAP there are better ways to intentionally abuse the server and accidentally storing a huge mail doesn't really bother anyone, you'll only have less disk space/quota.
that is a good one tooThe only possible use case that I can think of is to prevent users from unknowingly storing too large attachments to mails, but I haven't heard of that being a problem.
A++
_______________________________________________ Imap-protocol mailing list Imap-protocol@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-protocol
--
| Arnaud Taddei Senior Architect Communications Products Sun Microsystems, Inc. Phone x13541/+41(22)99904-41 Mobile +41 (0)79 506 1129 Email Arnaud.Taddei@xxxxxxx |