On 17 February 2018 at 18:46, John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > In article > <CAHVBJ+=-byouu86w+vk_lme_c1maeryp2c7nw3tmsdtei5d...@mail.gmail.com> you > write: >>The use of IDs instead of the real original email in the return-path >>may also be because of length limits. >>Max length of an email address is 254 chars. If you have to insert it >>"almost clear" in a return path and change the domain then there are >>chance your return-path address will be more than 254 chars. >>so if your original address is "a 242 ti...@example.com" how do you >>add VERP to it without some sort of obfuscation? > > Actually, you're more likely to hit the local-part limit of 64 first, > but how many real addresses (as opposed to artificial stress tests > ones) have you seen where that's a problem?
It was 15 years ago and you're probably right we hit the limit of the 64 chars in the local part before the 254 of the full email. I don't remember how often it happened, but this prevented delivery of messages (or breaking the bounce processing by truncating the address), so, even if they were 1 on 100.000 it needed a fix (and it was using internal identifiers). From a fast grep 0.05% of the email logged in my MTA are 40 chars ore more in length. 0.0002% is more than 50. Add your own return path domain length (in our case it was 17 chars, 18 with the @) and maybe some other prefix (it was a "b+" in our case) and you get the volumes. Stefano _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
