Re: [ietf-smtp] parsing SMTP replies (was: Proposed ESMTP keyword RCPTLIMIT}

[Sam Varshavchik <[e-mail]>]

John C Klensin writes:

> Personally and wearing no hats, I like the idea of a new
> "LIMITS" extension and EHLO keyword.   However, I think we could

This reminded me of something that I wanted to mention. In whichever form  
the eventual specification of recipient limits takes place: I believe that  
the specification should set a minimum recipient limit. In other words: the  
minimum number of recipients that can be advertised.

I believe that the generally good track record of historical  
interoperability of SMTP implementations goes back to what's in section  
4.5.3 of RFC 821, that gives the minimal limits of various things, like line  
lengths. And, incidentally, the minimum number of recipients that an SMTP  
server should accept is 100 recipients.

I don't remember if this was discussed, but this should be called out in any  
eventual recipient limit specification: the minimum value is 100, as per  
2821 and 821.