Brian Candler wrote:
Nobody gave an example where a message with over 80K of headers was
actually being truncated. That's why I said the server may or may not
have a bug in that case; it's untested. Perhaps if you have a message
with 200K of headers and 10K of body, that particular server would have
returned 210K of data. Or maybe it would have returned 80K. I don't
know.
At one point Jim Foley quoted a message from a Comcast representative
explaining the reason for the limit. Much of my ranting was in response
to that.
http://lists.ccil.org/pipermail/fetchmail-friends/2004-April/008523.html
| First, Comcast does support POP 3 TOP commands, however Comcast has found
| that increasing the amount of data TOP returns beyond the value of 64K
| has a tendency to crash Microsoft Outlook Express when an abnormally
| large header is sent. Increasing the value beyond 64K would open the
| platform to malicious use of large headers that adversely impacts system
| performance.
Note that it talks about large headers specifically.
I'm not clear on the discrepancy between 64k and 80k, but my arguments
apply the same to each.
--
==============================| "A slice of life isn't the whole cake
Rob Funk <rfunk(_at_)funknet(_dot_)net> | One tooth will never make a full
grin"
http://www.funknet.net/rfunk | -- Chris Mars, "Stuck in Rewind"