So in that case, would a reasonable update to RFC 2369 be to impose a
character limit of 998 characters on list header fields, including the
List-Unsubscribe header field?
No, not really. The limit is already there; it's a basic part of SMTP. We don't
talk about it every time we define a new header field. If we did that for every
limit defined at one protocol level which affects other levels there would be
no end to it.
Now, if there was evidence that people are attempting to put huge
URLs in List-* headers and causing problems then there would be justification
for adding some text about it. But IMO it would still not rise to the level
of calling for an update to the specification.
Ned
_______________________________________________
ietf-822 mailing list
ietf-822(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-822