Another New Feature Request

[Bill Wood]

On Wed, 10 Nov 1999 18:07:35 -0500 (EST), R. Kelley
Cook wrote:

>On Mon, 08 Nov 1999 17:51:53 -0800 (PST), Bill Wood wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>Your first mistake is in assuming that RFC 821/822 deal strictly with
>the internet.  There are many different transport mechanisms out there.
>

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

The internet was used as an example of a network that
limits packet size but does so in a totally transparent
way, as should the email protocol. Otherwise, this
example had nothing to do with email at all and I don't
see how you would conclude that it did ??. If you look
into the way the hierarchy of packets/layers work you
would realize that they have (or should have) nothing
to do with each other except for conforming layer
interfaces. In fact, I would expect that the email
protocol is or should be independent of the form of the
transport layer. Your comment was therefore neither
applicable nor appropriate, and I have yet to make my
first mistake.

w3
w3

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

Support Bilingual Education
 ...  English and Mathematics