Jeff wrote:
Peter Maydell <pmaydell(_at_)chiark(_dot_)greenend(_dot_)org(_dot_)uk> wrote:
David Levine wrote:
I took a quick look at your dynamic allocation and it looks
fine to me
It hasn't got to me yet, but I had a look at it in the list archive, and
this line of the patch:
+ i +- namebufsiz;
looks very dubious to me :-)
Good catch. I haven't tested it yet, I need to make sure it works
properly when entering the realloc code.
It's also got at least one unrelated change in it:
+ if(uprf(cp, "re:") || uprf(cp, "fw:"))
Ah, part of my pending work on generalizing stripping of Re:, another
topic.
Other than that, it's not as invasive a patch as I'd feared it might be,
but I still vote to put it on ice until we have some decent tests.
Yes, testing good.
Can the OP send me one of the messages that had issues?
Insert this anywhere in the headers of any message:
1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567:
"Some Sender"
That name is 127 characters long. scan will trip over it.
I just committed the NAMESZ increase to 999 and closed bug #14975.
David
Thanks (=E8=B0=A2=E8=B0=A2).
Jeff
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers