MBOX-Line: From imap at maclean.com  Wed Nov 23 16:48:18 2005
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Pete Maclean <imap@maclean.com>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:36 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] IMAP capability for maximum APPEND message size?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSX.4.64.0511231556030.533@pangtzu.panda.com>
References: <Pine.OSX.4.64.0511231556030.533@pangtzu.panda.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20051123194435.06fda2d0@maclean.com>

I have a prospective situation with my server where the maximum size 
of an APPENDable message would be namespace-specific.

I tend to agree with you about command line length.

Pete Maclean

At 07:08 PM 11/23/2005, Mark Crispin wrote:
>I am considering the addition of a trivial new capability to IMAP 
>that would advertise the maximum size of a message in APPEND (and 
>probably also CATENATE).  This has the same purpose as the SIZE 
>capability in SMTP.
>
>Currently, the only message size limit in IMAP is 4294967295 (2^32 - 
>1) due to IMAP's use of unsigned 32-bit integers.  Supporting that 
>size is troublesome due to +1 overflow problems.  Many 
>implementations have much smaller limits, such as both for 
>administrative and technical reasons (many filesystems encounter 
>problems after 2^31 - 1).
>
>Rather than have this be a secret, I propose a capability called 
>MAXAPPENDSIZE=nnn, where nnn is the size.
>
>I considered a somewhat more complex extension might advertise the 
>server's command line length.  I think that we should stick with RFC 
>2683 section 3.2.1.5, since a client which is armed with more detail 
>is much more likely to shoot itself in the foot.
>
>Comments?
>
>-- 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.
>_______________________________________________
>Imap-protocol mailing list
>Imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
>https://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-protocol
>


