Re: [Nmh-workers] [pick -to] apparently failing for long 'To:' header

[David Levine]

Ralph wrote:

> I think a limit so large that a breach suggests something's gone
> wrong, or it's a corrupt email, e.g. 100 KiB.  But that obviously
> shouldn't be allocated each time; it should grow to that as
> needed.  This will all be m_getfld() I assume?  Ken's nememsis?

I would avoid touch m_getfld(), esp. close to a new release.  And if
we just go with NMH_BUFSIZ, for now, we shouldn't need to.

> You introduced, IIRC, NMH_BUFSIZ as min(8192, BUFSIZ).

max(8192, BUFSIZ)

> That would seem sufficient for one logical header over multiple
> physical lines for the moment?  It could be used as the value of
> LBSIZE, etc., to minimise diff noise as it's just a temporary fix?
> I don't mind having a poke about for the limits that need upping
> if that's agreeable.

Sounds good to me.

David