Re: (OT) suggestion on terse wording of "IT Helpdesk"
Rick Thomas put forth on 5/25/2010 12:55 AM:
>
> On May 25, 2010, at 1:43 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>> To try to jam all of that information into the smtp address itself is
>> silly.
>> Again, this is what display names and sigs are for.
>
> Silly, perhaps for you or me, Stan. Not so for somebody from another
> culture, where the chain-of-command from me to the president of the
> company is an important part of my reason for being.
It has nothing to do with culture, but maximum address length defined in
RFC3696 and others. Given the length of his domain name, he shouldn't be
bumping up against the RFC limit with the example he gave. Apparently some
systems he communicates with restrict address length to less than that allowed
by RFC.
Thus, keeping addresses relatively short is good practice. And yes, sticking
everything plus the kitchen sink in an address is silly, regardless of
culture. Given the OP is already having problems with address length, I guess
he's already finding out how silly such lengthy addresses can be. No?
> Rick
>
> Comparative Sociology is fun, but definitely OT on debian-users.
You brought culture into the thread, no me. And it's not relevant to this
subject.
--
Stan
Reply to: