On 2023-05-12 at 09:40:14 UTC-0400 (Fri, 12 May 2023 13:40:14 +0000)
Paul Gregg via mailop <pgregg+mai...@pgregg.com>
is rumored to have said:
I suspect with verp/bounce addressing widely in use now, 64 octets
just
isn't enough these days.
Hogwash. 64 mail-safe octets is adequate for every domain to give a
unique printable(!) deliverable local-part to every elementary particle
in the universe. It's a namespace adequate for ANYTHING
Bulk mailers are just lazy and their median cluefullness is remarkably
low.
So, my question(s) to mailop - Is the 'local-part' definition no
longer
fit for purpose? Has that horse already bolted?
It's fine. The bozos ignoring it will have the low-grade background of
corner-case failures they richly deserve. Competitive pressures on
basic technical competence issues are GOOD.
Do you impose any limit
Yes.
and if so, what?
It varies. This is one of those cases where obscurity is good. I will
say that anyone using longer envelope senders knows (OR SHOULD KNOW)
that they are evading bounces. By operating outside of the formal rules,
they invite hostile reactions outside of the formal rules.
Senders should not construct local-parts longer than 63 characters for
use in SMTP. The fact that it often works at some sites should not be
taken as evidence that it can or should work everywhere all the time.
OTOH, what you do in headers is mostly your own business, except when it
starts to correlate to spamminess. Of course, if you want replies to
work, you won't put out-of-spec addresses where they might be replied
to.
--
Bill Cole
b...@scconsult.com or billc...@apache.org
(AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses)
Not Currently Available For Hire
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
