Author christian.heimes
Recipients christian.heimes, martin.panter, serhiy.storchaka, xdegaye, xiang.zhang, zach.ware
Date 2016-12-16.18:49:59
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <E34B2003-DA88-4297-A6AD-CFDB6D16D0B1@cheimes.de>
In-reply-to <1481913423.08.0.910353621655.issue28971@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
A larger limit is totally fine. The check protects against DoS with hundreds of MB.

I'm currently travelling and won't be available much until next week.

Am 16. Dezember 2016 19:37:03 MEZ, schrieb Xiang Zhang <report@bugs.python.org>:
>
>Xiang Zhang added the comment:
>
>Xavier's plan sounds good. We could increase the line length limitation
>to 64K and add another limitation of the maximum lines a multi-line
>block could contain. Any limitation is violated the connection is
>refused. This situation seems quite similar to
>http.client.parse_headers, which doesn't get a standard length
>limitation or number limitation either.
>
>----------
>nosy: +xiang.zhang
>
>_______________________________________
>Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
><http://bugs.python.org/issue28971>
>_______________________________________
History
Date User Action Args
2016-12-16 18:50:00christian.heimessetrecipients: + christian.heimes, xdegaye, martin.panter, zach.ware, serhiy.storchaka, xiang.zhang
2016-12-16 18:50:00christian.heimeslinkissue28971 messages
2016-12-16 18:49:59christian.heimescreate