Re: The IMAP APPENDLIMIT Extension - version 04

I understand Dave's rationale, given that currently the max message size 
is 4GB

I think however this limit also needs to be looked at.  Last time I 
raised it I didn't get anywhere.  However as time goes on, the chances 
of 4GB being insufficient for a message increases.

We already support 64 bit sizes in our server, and probably so do 
others.




------ Original Message ------
From: "Dave Cridland" <[email protected]>
To: "Jayantheesh S B" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Alexey Melnikov" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" 
<[email protected]>; "Michael M Slusarz" <[email protected]>
Sent: 21/03/2015 5:28:12 a.m.
Subject: Re: [imapext] The IMAP APPENDLIMIT Extension - version 04

>Ugh. Hit reply instead of reply to all.
>
>On 18 March 2015 at 19:47, Jayantheesh S B <[email protected]> 
>wrote:
>>All,
>>
>>Can you please share your views regarding the below item to come to a 
>>consensus?
>>
>>1.  APPENDLIMIT value should be UINT32_MAX or UINT64_MAX ?
>>
>
>UINT32_MAX.
>
>That's not to say another document couldn't raise this, but I strongly 
>object to hiding this fundamental limit increase in an unrelated spec.
>
>>2.  APPENDLIMIT value in SELECT/STATUS response: Whether APPENDLIMIT 
>>is needed in both SELECT and STATUS response?
>>
>
>I think that APPENDLIMIT would probably benefit from not being 
>mailbox-specific, but if the consensus is that this is needed, then put 
>it in both. Also probably a response-code on a NO to APPEND.
>
>The draft needs examples for APPENDs, too.

_______________________________________________
imapext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext