MBOX-Line: From mrc at CAC.Washington.EDU  Thu Nov 24 06:22:57 2005
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:36 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Re: IMAP capability for maximum APPEND message size?
In-Reply-To: <1132831193.14231.285.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <Pine.OSX.4.64.0511231556030.533@pangtzu.panda.com>
	<1132831193.14231.285.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSX.4.64.0511240618280.533@pangtzu.panda.com>

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?

> And is it really the message size limit that's a problem?

In the case I'm trying to address, it is.  If the server (as opposed to 
file format) is incapable of handling an incoming literal of more than 
100MB, then it is pointless for it to try to accept a 2GB literal.

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.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

