[jerf]

I should have added my "no credit for showing the existence of limits if your code doesn't use them" criterion in advance. Now it looks like I'm moving the goal posts. Oh well; you can see a similar point in my linked post from several months ago which at least adds credence to the idea that this isn't a new reaction of mine.

As you can see by reading that post as well, I'd also contend it really ought to be in the core API, not an optional thing that defaults to no limits. A sensible default could be imposed, too, though that turns out to be tricky to define the closer you look at it.

[jewel]

I think anyone that accepts scanned documents on their site will add these limits sooner or later out of necessity. At my last job we had them, because occasionally users would upload a 6000 dpi letter-sized page as a 1-bit tiff, or other such nonsense.

I'm actually about to add the same limits at my current job. It is an online slideshow builder, and most of the slides are scanned photographs. Last week someone uploaded a 11k x 17k JPG which hit us during a time of peak load and it caused quite a bit of trouble while the server was trying to build a thumbnail of it.

> I'd also contend it really ought to be in the core API, not an optional thing that defaults to no limits.

These limits really ought to be at a higher level, such as a ulimit on each apache process. In a large code base it requires too much effort to protect against every single avenue of potential accidental denial of service.

For example, at a previous job we had a lot of reports where the date range could be customized. This was fine for a long time, until a large client came along and ran his reports for the past five years. Since it was written in perl, it'd use up the RAM available on the system to generate the report, locking up the only webserver we had.