>> Doubling the size won't cut it, unfortunately, unless all you care >> about is the HTML that's getting truncated > >I take that back. I had forgotten what the buffer size actually was. >Doubling it will work for ups.com for now, but what about others? And >what about when they start attaching even bigger files?
According to your emails back in 2019 about this, you had at least one message that had a single line that was 11MB. https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/nmh-workers/2019-09/msg00007.html >As I stated before, I completely agree with Ralph's assessment (I think >it was Ralph) that nmh should do nothing do address this. But that then >leaves the question, what should be done. I am a LITTLE confused by this sentiment. You want nmh to do nothing, but you wrote a patch for it? I can understand the sentiment that we should report this behavior, but it seems like we're alone in not dealing with it. >> I took a look at Andy's patch; I didn't go through ALL of the buffer >> handling logic just yet, but at first glance it seems reasonable. > >I hope it's looked at fairly well. Long-established code shouldn't be >changed lightly in my opinion. Also, I won't be offended if someone >comes up with a better solution, or even if it's outright denied as it >has been. I want to clarify that it wasn't really denied, at least in my view; I explained that I didn't do it earlier this year for reasons in my personal life. Back in 2022 what seemed to happen was that the discussion kind of petered out with both sides assuming the other side was doing something. I think part of it was that there was a bug in your original patch and it got fixed but it seemed like it needed some more testing and at least I forgot about it. --Ken
