I wish that you had read what I wrote before correcting me.
I said:
| It's worth noting that, since the son-of-1036 draft
| recommends that news systems limit the size of new posts to
| 60,000 bytes,
From section 4.6 of the draft standard that is expected to
replace RFC1036:
Posters SHOULD limit posted articles to at most 60,000
octets, including headers and EOL representations, unless
the articles are being posted only within a cooperating sub-
net which is known to be capable of handling larger articles
gracefully.
I did not cite this as a "rule." I merely observed that the
draft "recommends" this behavior, and suggested that FAQ
maintainers would be wise to adhere closely to the standard
if possible.
I am also aware, before anyone chooses to point out the
status of a "draft standard," that this is not yet a
definitive standard and should technically not be considered
more than a work-in-progress. I am also aware that it is
improbable that this draft will not supersede RFC 1036, or
that this particular limit will change value before it does
so. I maintain that it is especially desirable for FAQ
maintainers, as people who are in a position of setting
semi-official standards of behavior for Usenet, to be
particularly diligent in observing standards, and that they
would be well-advised to heed this advice before it becomes
required.
So, for anyone who missed it last time and may accidentally
take my comment seriously, please do so.
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved