On Sat, 2008-05-17 at 13:57 -0400, John R Levine wrote:
> > Another one: String lengths. > > You're right, it's a problem. The hand-wave is to assert that few MTAs > enforce the 64 character limit, but I realize that's not very persuasive > for a standard. On the other hand, since there's no nesting, the damage > is at least predictable. The current spec adds 16 characters to each > address but I've been considering a modified version with 10 characters > that addresses some greylisting problems as well. As a data point, I have seen many European receivers choke on > 64 char local parts. I don't have a list of those domains (and it was may 4 years ago), but when I tested a BATV like scheme here at work which allowed > 64 characters, messages were not delivered. -- :: Jeff Macdonald | Director of Messaging Technologies :: e-Dialog | [EMAIL PROTECTED] :: 131 Hartwell Ave. | Lexington, MA 02421 :: v: 781-372-1922 | f: 781-863-8118 :: www.e-dialog.com
