MBOX-Line: From mrc at CAC.Washington.EDU  Mon Nov 28 11:39:36 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: <1133205808.3403.42.camel@hurina>
References: <Pine.OSX.4.64.0511231556030.533@pangtzu.panda.com>
	<1132831193.14231.285.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<Pine.OSX.4.64.0511240618280.533@pangtzu.panda.com>
	<000001c5f121$145affd0$6301a8c0@xms.co.za>
	<438B4B45.2000303@sun.com> <438B56FF.2060905@sun.com>
	<1133205808.3403.42.camel@hurina>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSX.4.64.0511281133350.562@pangtzu.panda.com>

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> All that's needed for preventing abuse is for server to have a "maximum
> message size" setting. The capability would only be helpful for some
> client software to show a friendly error message..

Exactly.

> I'm not all that sure that it's such useful. It could work just as well
> by:
> 1 APPEND box {105906176}
> 1 NO [ALERT] Sorry, we have a 100MB message size limit. Couldn't save your message.

Unfortunately, we then get into the whole "but it's not in my language" 
rathole.

> But sure, literal+ extension is a problem since it can't give the
> failure immediately but first has to read the 100+MB of mail before
> doing it. Or I guess it could send the error back immediately and then
> just disconnect.

Exactly.  It was in working on this code that I observed the problem.  It 
seemed to me to be silly that a client had no way of knowing in advance 
that what it's trying to do doesn't stand a chance of working.

The existance of SIZE in SMTP, and the fact that Cyrus also has a limit 
(smaller than UW's!) strengthened my conviction that this should be 
advertised by the server and not kept secret.

> BTW. Are other people also getting these messages twice?

Yes, we all are.  The only xms.co.za address on the imap-protocol list is 
philip@xms.co.za, and there is no above.proper.com address.

If philip@xms.co.za and/or xms.co.za and/or above.proper.com does not 
remedy this problem in a timely manner, do you think that I should remove 
that address from imap-protocol?

-- 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.

