[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Nmh-workers] formatting headers - a weird case
From: |
Jon Steinhart |
Subject: |
[Nmh-workers] formatting headers - a weird case |
Date: |
Sat, 13 Nov 2010 10:42:21 -0800 |
The existing code applies a user-settable format string to parsed headers to
generate
the scan listing. Part of how this works is to generate a list of headers
referenced
by the format string so that only those headers are extracted. However, this
doesn't
quite work in all cases. For example, this recent message from Earl:
> Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 12:30:37 CST
> To: Jon Steinhart <address@hidden>
> cc: address@hidden
> From: Earl Hood <address@hidden>
> Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] character sets and localization
>
> Return-Path: address@hidden
> Delivery-Date: Sat Nov 13 10:32:33 2010
> Return-Path: <address@hidden>
> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
> d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
> h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:received
> :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject
> :from:to:cc:content-type;
> bh=e1pTfthwujlXK1apKyvhs+nsZNEe8XV1OqGdD8qr9oc=;
> b=eb9C5xr177Yim0k/y+EOAud0SXI1BGRpVTi8Q9982OAnLjI0d3E5YMMDqhQhMfBKTi
> 9kPuaP2tL7132/W1UR98xZ9Xkqafj6BE57uhtypARLhHeeV5IjcfYaZR2zEilR+R7Do7
> Vwqs9TNMCd+kFftJ1/UX6zD3lAQcWPlkD1L8w=
> DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
> d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
> h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
> :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
> b=IS/rdEVgugqAKKXOlkvCvwWLUPMlz3lgICdsbuFcwx70Rk64FElUebGvZpSZHga/c6
> ByYcUMuZr1U0FPTreaZu6TitTTTJDH91eulLv0yvIowlp2hGbnylw/yfPlS5T7/3v6LV
> EZ799tOZeihEt36WVUa4tpqHHaEOGX21PihHI=
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Sender: address@hidden
> In-Reply-To: <address@hidden>
> References: <address@hidden>
> <address@hidden>
> <address@hidden>
> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 1KTQ8_dSmNGH2kLYPSk_Vb-4Ezk
Note that there are two Return-Path header fields. If you do a scan -format
"%{Return-Path}"
you'll get the value of the last one. Is that what we want? What is the
proper formatting
of header fields that occur more than once. BTW, I haven't checked, but I'd
guess that this
is a memory leak!
Jon
- [Nmh-workers] formatting headers - a weird case,
Jon Steinhart <=