(getting back to this now - sorry for the delay)
I fail to see any real added risk here. Consider: Vacation can be
most once per incoming message, so the maximum number of database entries
vacation action can produce per incoming message is one. So, if the
to fill up the database, the simplest way to do it is set up regular
without a handle setting and send in a bunch of messages from different
sources. Note. however, that implementations are free to limit the number
remembered responses, so this trick will only work if the implementation
The implementation may limit the number of remembered responses, but not
the number of databases.
I guess I don't understand what the "number of databases" is or why it should
be limited. It certainly doesn't seem like you're talking about the number of
database entries, which in any case would be the same as the number of
What's a reasonable lowest limit that scripts
should be able to rely on? 100?
I don't know if it's worth an entry under "security considerations", but
allowing the implementation to limit of number of databases sounds useful
to me. I never thought about a script using a large number of them.
This now sounds like you're talking about limiting how many handles a given
script can specify. But I still don't see the point, since a given script can
only have one handle apply per incoming message, so the overriding limit
is still the number of remembered responses.