# Re: More comments on the mailserver URL scheme

Larry Masinter (masinter@parc.xerox.com)
Fri, 23 Jun 1995 16:14:20 PDT

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Larry Masinter: "Re: new port for DNS"
- Previous message: Paul Hoffman: "Re: new port for DNS"

    To: peterd@bunyip.com

    In-Reply-To: peterd@bunyip.com's message of Fri, 23 Jun 1995 13:45:08 -0700 <95Jun23.134519pdt.2764@golden.parc.xerox.com>

    Subject: Re: More comments on the mailserver URL scheme

    From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>

    Message-Id: <95Jun23.161433pdt.2761@golden.parc.xerox.com>

    Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 16:14:20 PDT

Is the danger that the limit '512' is too short, or that there should
be no limit at all? If the former, what would you propose as a
reasonable limit?

> Setting a general limit on the lengths of URLs may be a
> practical necessity, but 512 bytes is way too short for
> some of the applications we're already seeing. We've run
> into problems with early clients that had URL buffer
> lengths set too low when using URLs in which the selector
> portion contains strings which are machine generated and
> used internally by the server.

This sounds like an argument for having a well-known length limit. If
clients are going to have any limit at all, it would be useful for
servers to know what it might be so that they won't send out URLs that
the clients can't handle. Right?

- Next message: Larry Masinter: "Re: new port for DNS"
- Previous message: Paul Hoffman: "Re: new port for DNS"