On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg@turnstep.com> wrote:
>> I'm sure there's a relevant RFC somewhere about the lengths, but it's
>> kind of a moot point. In all my years of moderating (and I've been at
>> this longer than anyone except Marc at this point, I think), I've
>> never seen a header long enough to warrant 10240.
>
> That's precisely my point. If we raise it to that we'll probably never
> have to worry about it again. If you raise it to some smaller value
> just large enough for the current violators it'll come up again
> sometime and we won't have accomplished much.
>
> I'm on a hundreds of mailing lists, this is the only place where I've
> seen where people keep bumping into all these arcane limits.
So coincidentally I just saw this somewhere else for the first time.
Their limit was 32k and they're raising it to 64k due to an entirely
legitimate email which exceeded the 32k limit.
--
greg