David Levine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Perhaps the mh-mail man page needs to be updated. My mh-mail > > manpage, from the 1.3 source, cites a limit of 63 characters, as per > > RFC822. > > That's different, that's for header names. That should say 126 now > (excluding the :, which is included in the 127 bytes in the buffer). > > The 998 is the limit on the length, excluding the trailing CR/LF, of any > line.
I've scanned RFC822 (w/o re-reading the whole thing) and I see no limits listed there for the field name or the total length. RFC2822 says: There are two limits that this standard places on the number of characters in a line. Each line of characters MUST be no more than 998 characters, and SHOULD be no more than 78 characters, excluding the CRLF. The 998 character limit is due to limitations in many implementations which send, receive, or store Internet Message Format messages that simply cannot handle more than 998 characters on a line. Receiving implementations would do well to handle an arbitrarily large number of characters in a line for robustness sake. However, there are so many implementations which (in compliance with the transport requirements of [RFC2821]) do not accept messages containing more than 1000 character including the CR and LF per line, it is important for implementations not to create such messages. But there is no limit on field name length that I can find. Note that it says you should be able to handle a arbitrary length to be robust. > > In any case, raising the limit does seem to be the answer... > > Agreed. I don't think that dynamic buffer allocation is worth > the trouble here. We're just trying to avoid a harmless warning. While we are at it, it wouldn't hurt to make the implementation more robust. Besides the dynamic allocation, or at least raising the limit to 998, we should check to see what would happen with long header (127->~998) names and long lines (up to 998). As I admit above, I did not read the whole of rfc822 and rfc2822 (OK, I'll admit that I have in the past, but that was years ago), only did some relevant searches. Thanks (谢谢). Jeff -- Jeffrey C. Honig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.honig.net/jch GnuPG ID:14E29E13 <http://www.honig.net/jch/key.shtml> _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
