From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 12 May 2001 07:34:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 12 May 2001 07:34:23 -0400 Received: from mailout04.sul.t-online.com ([194.25.134.18]:11782 "EHLO mailout04.sul.t-online.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 12 May 2001 07:34:11 -0400 Date: 12 May 2001 13:00:00 +0200 From: kaih@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <80knzI9mw-B@khms.westfalen.de> In-Reply-To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q??= Subject: Re: [PATCH] adding PCI bus information to SCSI layer X-Mailer: CrossPoint v3.12d.kh6 R/C435 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Organisation? Me?! Are you kidding? =?ISO-8859-1?Q?References: _<20010511133242.B3224@bacchus.dhis.org>__<20010511133242.B3224@bacchus.dhis.org>__?= X-No-Junk-Mail: I do not want to get *any* junk mail. Comment: Unsolicited commercial mail will incur an US$100 handling fee per received mail. X-Fix-Your-Modem: +++ATS2=255&WO1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org jlundell@pobox.com (Jonathan Lundell) wrote on 11.05.01 in : > At 1:32 PM -0300 2001-05-11, Ralf Baechle wrote: > >On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 12:51:25AM -0700, Jonathan Lundell wrote: > >> Kai Henningsen wrote: > >> >What's a lot more important is that the mail standards say that this > >> >stuff should not be interpreted by the receivers as needing wrapping, > >> >so irregardless of good or bad design it's just plain illegal. > >> > > >> >If you want to support wrapping with plain text, investigate > >> >format=flowed. > >> > >> Yes, I did that. > >> > > > I'm curious, though: I haven't found the mail standards that forbid > >> receivers to wrap long lines. Certainly many mail clients do it. > >> What's the relevant RFC? > > > >RFC 2822, 2.1.1. > > Thanks. It's not quite a standard yet, but it's true, it does limit > lines to 998 characters. Sort of a strange limit, but there you > are.... It's the unchanged old RFC 821 SMTP line length limit [4.5.3 SIZES, text line] (the consequences are just spelt out more clearly). And 821 is from 1982, so this is certainly not new in any sense of the word. MfG Kai