From owner-freebsd-isp Mon Oct 7 14:41:22 1996 Return-Path: owner-isp Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA01683 for isp-outgoing; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 14:41:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from noc.msc.edu (noc.msc.edu [137.66.12.254]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA01674 for ; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 14:41:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from uc.msc.edu by noc.msc.edu (5.65/MSC/v3.0.1(920324)) id AA11225; Mon, 7 Oct 96 16:41:01 -0500 Received: from fergus-26.dialup.prtel.com by uc.msc.edu (5.65/MSC/v3.0z(901212)) id AA09550; Mon, 7 Oct 96 16:40:57 -0500 Received: (from alk@localhost) by compound.Think.COM (8.7.6/8.7.3) id QAA06214; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 16:41:56 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 16:41:56 -0500 (CDT) From: Tony Kimball Message-Id: <199610072141.QAA06214@compound.Think.COM> To: jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com Cc: isp@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: User name length limit increase References: <199610071937.MAA06009@athena.tera.com> <199610071947.OAA13921@brasil.moneng.mei.com> Sender: owner-isp@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk : Aside from the traditional "size" argument, I don't see anything that would : prevent a site from doing this. ON THE OTHER HAND, I see no particularly : good reason to implement it as default .. particularly with 64 characters. What *should* it be, then? ((1<