Re: Brush up those FAQ's ...

---------

Richard Mathews (richard@astro.West.Sun.COM)
Tue, 11 Oct 1994 10:12:10 -0700


>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.

Your original statement is *not* consistent with the quote from the
draft standard. You originally said that it recommends that NEWS
SYSTEMS limit the size. The draft standard says that POSTERS should
limit the size. Note that the draft standard defines a POSTER as
A "poster" is a human being (or software equivalent) submit-
ting a possibly-compliant article to be "posted": made
available for reading on all relevant hosts.
A POSTER is not a news system. Posters should limit size of articles.
News systems should not. With regard to news systems, the draft
standard says
Implementations SHOULD avoid fixed constraints on the sizes
of lines within an article and on the size of the entire
article.
Also
All implementations MUST be able to handle an article
totalling at least 65,000 octets, including headers and EOL
representations, gracefully and efficiently. All implemen-
tations SHOULD be able to handle an article totalling at
least 1,000,000 (one million) octets, including headers and
EOL representations, gracefully and efficiently.

Richard M. Mathews D efend
E stonian-Latvian-Lithuanian
richard@West.Sun.COM I ndependence



[ Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive | Search Mail Archive | Authors | Usenet ]
[ 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 ]

---------

faq-admin@landfield.com

© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved