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 :-) It's also got at least one unrelated change in it: + if(uprf(cp, "re:") || uprf(cp, "fw:")) 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. -- PMM _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
