# Fly in the ointment?

Brian Capouch (brianc@saintjoe.EDU)
Mon, 24 May 1993 19:11:14 -0700 (PDT)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Marc Andreessen: "Fly in the ointment?"
- Previous message: Ned Freed: "Re: Fly in the ointment?"
- Next in thread: Marc Andreessen: "Fly in the ointment?"
- Reply: Marc Andreessen: "Fly in the ointment?"

    Message-Id: <0g0M1223LE06EshFwp@saintjoe.edu>

    Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 19:11:14 -0700 (PDT)

    From: Brian Capouch <brianc@saintjoe.EDU>

    To: uri@bunyip.com

    Subject: Fly in the ointment?

I've been playing madly with URLs for some time now. Last week,
something came up that I feel is going to have to be addressed by the
group looking into their design.

As we all know, by the time we get scheme name, host name, possibly
port, and "opaque string" all munged together into a piece, we wind up
with a string of characters that can get pretty long.

As part of my "mail-enabled xmosaic" project (details to follow) I sent
around some URLs to some people so they could test my server by mailing
them back to it.

Guess what? RFC822's less-than-80-chars-per-line limit *broke* my URLs
into a couple of lines (at my conformance-enforcing MTA), and the
embedded CRLF caused the mail daemon to interpret the URLs as two
separate (nonsensical) pieces.

Am I right that this circumstance is absolutely going to have to be
addressed, since it is extremely likely that many URLs will wind up
exceeding the 80 char RFC822 limit? Or am I missing something really
obvious?

Brian Capouch
Fearless Frontiersperson
Saint Joseph's College for Children

- Next message: Marc Andreessen: "Fly in the ointment?"
- Previous message: Ned Freed: "Re: Fly in the ointment?"
- Next in thread: Marc Andreessen: "Fly in the ointment?"
- Reply: Marc Andreessen: "Fly in the ointment?"