Hello, I simply think it's bad approach to *ignore* internet standards (RFCs) and implement your own (nonstandard) rules. If current database schema doesn't follow standards and as result you have some "generic" errors, you should fix DB schema. I don't think WG should micromanage NCC in similar "obvious" thinks. There is no need to reinvent the wheel here. Or the NCC staff wants to tell us that RFCs are a waste of paper? What real problem solves your limit of email in the RIPE database to 80 characters? Why it isn't simply set 64+255+1 (as expected by RFC 5321 for valid email address)? It doesn't matter if it causes any real problems. But it can cause them, unexpectly. Statistics are not important here. It's not your role to judge email validity in term of it's length. You have to check its syntax validity. Developers like to introduce their own special rules, but they have no support in the RFC - and that is simply a bug. - Daniel On 9/5/24 4:24 PM, Edward Shryane wrote:
We now limit the email address to 80 characters to fit into the database index table, which fixed a bug. Previously, if a user submitted a too-long email address, it would fail with a generic "internal error" because the SQL INSERT statement failed. Now, the update will fail with a syntax error on the email address.
I don't think implementing limitations adnd ignoring relevant RFCs here isn't a good approach at all, it can generate unnecessary problems. Does the 80 character limit cause any problems? We fixed a bug for an issue that occurred once, for an address which seemed to be auto-generated. The average length of all email addresses currently in the RIPE database is 21 characters.
If the current limit is too restrictive for the DB-WG then we will increase it to the limit defined in the RFC.