MBOX-Line: From blong at google.com  Wed Mar 27 12:51:59 2013
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Brandon Long <blong@google.com>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:50 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Working around the evils of LITERAL+
In-Reply-To: <CAKHUCzyfA2ZnDn3hXQt=DCj5O4y_fRSaW6ocDLMd1VpDWEn6zQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABa8R6s3rK5JkXBtV7RWbav9T2GBCg+pw-aWd9=5Szv3ocDS_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<5152E3E6.40506@aj.jp.nec.com> <1364388724.13923.97.camel@innu>
	<CABa8R6vv_fupAVX6bv018L9j-uW=YdW5wJ+oACrd3W_WVJq9Ow@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKHUCzyfA2ZnDn3hXQt=DCj5O4y_fRSaW6ocDLMd1VpDWEn6zQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABa8R6v=m6WOHAzNBKv43PB__v8Pw=GHGcEq8M6KN3wMzx82kQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net> wrote:

>
> On 27 Mar 2013 18:36, "Brandon Long" <blong@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > We actually had that failure mode to begin with due to a bug, and then
> we'd drop the connection after too many bad commands... but of course,
> they'd just retry.
>
> I'm hesitant to suggest it, but is it worth sending BYE and dropping the
> connection? It's sailing just within the lines of the specification, I
> think.
>
I guess its hard to know what the client will do.  Its possible this will
just prevent any messages from being sent, never getting to the point of
showing an error to the user.

In my perfect world, I guess I'd want literal+ to be limited to say 50k,
and you have to use literal for anything larger.

Brandon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/pipermail/imap-protocol/attachments/20130327/19690cf2/attachment.html>
