Message105943
> It is not, but just seemed like good practice to advertise the limit in
> EHLO and enforce it. My patch doesn't do a good job of enforcing it
> since it enforces it before doing process_message. The problems with
> 2518 and 1745035 are still there.
Then I doubt it would be a good idea, also because the following comment added in issue 1745035 should still stand:
> The patch does not work as Giampaolo intends. If the patch were
> applied as-is, no emails longer than 998 bytes could be sent.
Personally I think there's no other way to gracefully solve this other than using a tempfile to store the data, but since I'm not a user of the module I'm going to let someone else comment about this.
> RFC 5321 doesn't specify it must accept arguments, but I agree it is
> a good idea. I'll work on that and submit a new patch.
If there's no RFC which states that, then I would provide arguments for HELP *only* if that is a common practice amongst smtp servers. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2010-05-17 23:06:44 | giampaolo.rodola | set | recipients:
+ giampaolo.rodola, barry, josiah.carlson, r.david.murray, alfmel |
2010-05-17 23:06:43 | giampaolo.rodola | set | messageid: <1274137603.27.0.89406169907.issue8739@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2010-05-17 23:06:41 | giampaolo.rodola | link | issue8739 messages |
2010-05-17 23:06:41 | giampaolo.rodola | create | |
|