What's the consensus, ware we ``good enough'' with increasing NAMESZ? Or should I do some testing on the dynamic reallocation? Thanks (谢谢). Jeff -- Jeffrey C. Honig <jch(_at_)honig(_dot_)net> http://www.honig.net/jch GnuPG ID:14E29E13 <http://www.honig.net/jch/key.shtml> _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Previous by Date: | Re: [Nmh-workers] 128 byte field name limit in NAMESZ breaks scan(1), David Levine |
---|---|
Next by Date: | 'From ' lines (was Re: [Nmh-workers] 128 byte field name limit in NAMESZ breaks scan(1)), Joel Reicher |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [Nmh-workers] 128 byte field name limit in NAMESZ breaks scan(1), Jeffrey C Honig |
Next by Thread: | Re: [Nmh-workers] 128 byte field name limit in NAMESZ breaks scan(1), David Levine |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |