Another New Feature Request

[Bill Wood]

I am at a total loss as to why this line length
limitation, as implemented, is desireable or sensible.
The entire internet limits the size of transmitted
packets (frames) to about 1500 bytes for reasons of
non-blocking, virtual channel multiplexing and flow
control, yet GB files are segmented, transmitted, and
reassembled without error and with full transparency to
the user. The problem with the 1000 character limit is
that it's not transparent and that's stupid.

w3

====================

On Thu, 04 Nov 1999 14:50:53 -0500 (EST), R. Kelley
Cook wrote:

>On Tue, 2 Nov 1999 11:04:36 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
>
>>    821 is dated 8/82 and is not being shown as being superceded by any other
>>document.  Translation for the not-technical, a single-line paragraph is a bad
>>idea for if it exceeds 1000 characters (~12 "lines") the SMTP should reject
>>the message for having lines which are too long.  This is one standard I don't
>>particularly care to see removed or revised.
>
>Actually it will be very shortly my friend...
>
>The replacements for 821/822 have been submitted.  You can check out
>the precursor of them are draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-10.txt &
>draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-07.txt at
>http://www.ietf.org/ids.by.wg/drums.html.  They will likely be
>introduced as new RFCs before the end of the year.
>
>These are both to make SMTP and the mail message format standards and
>can only clarify confusion with them.  No new features are introduced. 
>
>
>In particular, the 998 octect + CR/LF per line limit remains.
>
> -- Kelley Cook
>
>
>
>

w3

Bill Wood
Las Vegas, NV
wwwood@lv.rmci.net

Support Bilingual Education
 ...  English and Mathematics