max.length of email address??
Nathan Kahn
"the bestconfettica...@theatrefx.com" be deliverable if
there is an appropriate entry in the aliases file at theatrefx.com?
TIA
Nathan / Theatre Effects
www.theatrefx.com
Jean-Pierre Radley
| Is there a maximum allowable length for email addresses? i.e. would
| "the bestconfettica...@theatrefx.com" be deliverable if
| there is an appropriate entry in the aliases file at theatrefx.com?
There may be a limit, but I don't know what it might be.
Have you encountered an error implying that there is?
--
JP
Nathan Kahn
wrote:
>Nathan Kahn propounded (on Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 02:03:24PM +0000):
>| Is there a maximum allowable length for email addresses? i.e. would
>| "thebestconfettic...@theatrefx.com" be deliverable if
>| there is an appropriate entry in the aliases file at theatrefx.com?
>
>There may be a limit, but I don't know what it might be.
>Have you encountered an error implying that there is?
No, I haven't encountered an error. Just thinking about a funny
marketing campaign and wondering about the limitations.
I just made an entry in aliases, 'smail -bv' shows it as deliverable,
so I sent myself an email and received it okay. But of course I sent
it from theatrefx.com so it didn't actually go out over the net.
Perhaps you'd send me a test message?
thebestconfettic...@theatrefx.com
Nathan Kahn
>so I sent myself an email and received it okay. But of course I sent
>it from theatrefx.com so it didn't actually go out over the net.
>Perhaps you'd send me a test message?
>
>thebestconfettic...@theatrefx.com
I've successfully received two tests, so we know that 32 characters is
fine.
If anybody here knows if there really is a maximum, and what that
maximum might be, that's be interesting to know . . .
John DuBois
In article <3ae70eda....@news.kiva.net>,
Nathan Kahn <nat...@theatrefx.com> wrote:
+If anybody here knows if there really is a maximum, and what that
+maximum might be, that's be interesting to know . . .
Implementations will vary, but RFC821 says:
The maximum total length of a user name is 64 characters.
The maximum total length of a domain name or number is 64 characters.
John
--
John DuBois jo...@sco.com KC6QKZ/AE
I wish to God these calculations had been executed by steam. - Charles Babbage
Jean-Pierre Radley
|
| In article <3ae70eda....@news.kiva.net>,
| Nathan Kahn <nat...@theatrefx.com> wrote:
| +If anybody here knows if there really is a maximum, and what that
| +maximum might be, that's be interesting to know . . .
|
| Implementations will vary, but RFC821 says:
|
| The maximum total length of a user name is 64 characters.
| The maximum total length of a domain name or number is 64 characters.
In the last few days, RFC2821 & RFC2822 were just released, superseding
RFC821 & RFC822. There's a slight change to what you just wrote:
local-part
The maximum total length of a user name or other local-part is 64
characters.
domain
The maximum total length of a domain name or number is 255
characters.
--
JP
Stephen M. Dunn
$In the last few days, RFC2821 & RFC2822 were just released, superseding
$RFC821 & RFC822. There's a slight change to what you just wrote:
Just a quick note: in cases like this, where newer RFCs change
specifications originally found in older RFCs, it's usually a good
idea to stick with the most conservative. After all, there are plenty
of mail servers out there that may be coded to use the old limits,
and they're not going away any time soon.
--
Stephen M. Dunn <ste...@stevedunn.ca>
>>>----------------> http://www.stevedunn.ca/ <----------------<<<
------------------------------------------------------------------
Say hi to my cat -- http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/toby/
Bill Vermillion
Stephen M. Dunn <ste...@bokonon.stevedunn.ca> wrote:
>In article <2001042518...@jpradley.jpr.com> Jean-Pierre Radley <j...@jpr.com> writes:
>$In the last few days, RFC2821 & RFC2822 were just released,
>$superseding RFC821 & RFC822. There's a slight change to what you
>$just wrote:
> Just a quick note: in cases like this, where newer RFCs change
>specifications originally found in older RFCs, it's usually a good
>idea to stick with the most conservative. After all, there are plenty
>of mail servers out there that may be coded to use the old limits,
>and they're not going away any time soon.
Just as there are still MTA specifications that are serviceable
as those specified in RFC1149, nothwithstanding the updated ones
specified in RFC2549 giving a QOS unobtainable in the original.
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com