Ken wrote:
+ /* If using an rmmproc, check for MAXARGS overflow before
+ modifying anything. If not using an rmmproc, we don't
+ pass the message files to another process, so this check
+ isn't necessary. This check also isn't necessary if
+
Hi Paul (Fox),
so, i've stumbled over rmmproc's limit in the past (and, like others,
have quietly, manually, done it in chunks instead), but i don't think
i've ever seen a similar limit with rm. and now i'm wondering, why
not? certainly this works just fine:
$ mkdir /tmp/many
$
Hi,
Paul Vixie wrote:
On 2012-11-27 1:09 AM, Ken Hornstein wrote:
So for this hypothetical rmmpipe ... should the filename separator
be a newline or a \0?
if we want to allow newlines in filenames we'd have to allow -0 (like
xargs does) to change the format. this would be a burden on all
Paul Vixie p...@redbarn.org writes:
On 11/26/2012 9:42 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
Anybody who subscribes to the Linux-kernel list is going to be
deleting about 700 messages a day. So if you took a 3-day weekend you
can be looking at 2,000+ messages to delete. exmh has some
i stand by this in spite of modern linux's ability to pass 200Mbyte of
argv[]. for one thing not every system that MH can otherwise run on has
this kind of high limit. for another thing no matter how large you make
it there will some day be some crazy person with a folder larger than
that limit.
On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 09:55:42 -0600, David Levine said:
Ken wrote:
I'm personally willing to write code to make it so if rmmproc exceeds
MAXARGS it will run rmmproc multiple times.
Or bail out and let the user do that manually? Is this something
that people do often? Personally, if I
On 26 November 2012 at 16:42, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 09:55:42 -0600, David Levine said:
Ken wrote:
I'm personally willing to write code to make it so if rmmproc exceeds
MAXARGS it will run rmmproc multiple times.
Or bail out and let the user do that
On 11/26/2012 9:42 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
Anybody who subscribes to the Linux-kernel list is going to be
deleting about 700 messages a day. So if you took a 3-day weekend you
can be looking at 2,000+ messages to delete. exmh has some
special-case code that does it in chunks of 998
paul vixie wrote:
On 11/26/2012 9:42 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
Anybody who subscribes to the Linux-kernel list is going to be
deleting about 700 messages a day. So if you took a 3-day weekend you
can be looking at 2,000+ messages to delete. exmh has some
special-case code
so, i've stumbled over rmmproc's limit in the past (and, like others,
have quietly, manually, done it in chunks instead), but i don't think
i've ever seen a similar limit with rm. and now i'm wondering, why
not?
Well, if you're a young whippersnapper, you wouldn't have seen that :-)
certainly
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Ken Hornstein k...@pobox.com wrote:
so, i've stumbled over rmmproc's limit in the past (and, like others,
have quietly, manually, done it in chunks instead), but i don't think
i've ever seen a similar limit with rm. and now i'm wondering, why
not?
Well, if
but now isn't then. it's too bad we can't make rmmproc work as well
as a modern rm. but having just browsed the mh sources a bit, i
begin to see the problem. as always. :-)
Well, it all depends on we. If by we you mean Ken Hornstein,
then I've already stated my feelings on that subject.
If
ken wrote:
but now isn't then. it's too bad we can't make rmmproc work as well
as a modern rm. but having just browsed the mh sources a bit, i
begin to see the problem. as always. :-)
Well, it all depends on we. If by we you mean Ken Hornstein,
then I've already stated my
using argv[] to carry bulk data is gauche. if mh wants to be hacky it
can do stuff like that. if mh wants to be an example of good engineering
then it has to do something else.
Sigh. If we want mh to be a model of good engineering ... well, there's
a lot of work to do. Like getting rid of the
On 2012-11-26, at 5:09 PM, Ken Hornstein wrote:
So for this hypothetical rmmpipe ... should the filename separator be
a newline or a \0?
One text item per line is the Unix Way.
___
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers@nongnu.org
On 2012-11-27 1:09 AM, Ken Hornstein wrote:
using argv[] to carry bulk data is gauche. if mh wants to be hacky it
can do stuff like that. if mh wants to be an example of good engineering
then it has to do something else.
i stand by this in spite of modern linux's ability to pass 200Mbyte of
Hi Jeff,
Feeding rmmproc filenames on stdin is the normal workaround, LF or
NUL terminated.
Changing the way rmmproc is called would break all out existing
scripts.
Clearly, yes. There'd be to be some indication that the rmmproc desired
it, or a run-time test done to show it copes. I'd
Changing the way rmmproc is called would break all out existing
scripts.
Clearly, yes. There'd be to be some indication that the rmmproc desired
it, or a run-time test done to show it copes. I'd prefer the former.
So, Ralph what exactly do you want here? I will confess that
I'm
Ken wrote:
I'm personally willing to write code to make it so if rmmproc exceeds
MAXARGS it will run rmmproc multiple times.
Or bail out and let the user do that manually? Is this something
that people do often? Personally, if I tried to rmm a large number
of messages, it would be a mistake.
Hi David,
Or bail out and let the user do that manually? Is this something
that people do often? Personally, if I tried to rmm a large number
of messages, it would be a mistake.
It bites refile(1) as well as rmm(1), rmmproc is used both times, but
not sortm(1), there the old order is just
My rmm is an alias:
refile -normmproc !* +Trash
Thus I can search back throug deletd mail.
Whenever I notice such searching is slow,
or the message numbers in the results are
approaching 2000 I `empty first:800` or so.
Empty is an alias:
/usr/local/bin/rmm +Trash !*; folder -pack
With
I'm personally willing to write code to make it so if rmmproc exceeds
MAXARGS it will run rmmproc multiple times.
Or bail out and let the user do that manually? Is this something
that people do often? Personally, if I tried to rmm a large number
of messages, it would be a mistake.
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Ken Hornstein k...@pobox.com wrote:
I'm personally willing to write code to make it so if rmmproc exceeds
MAXARGS it will run rmmproc multiple times.
Or bail out and let the user do that manually? Is this something
that people do often? Personally, if I
Personally, bailing out seems wrong; I don't think the designers considered
the MAXARGS limit as a feature, but probably thought no one would ever be
crazy enough to want to delete 1000 messages at once.
More likely it's a holdover from the days of 128KB address spaces.
when Junk gets too full, i have a shell script named expunge
#! /bin/sh
cd `mhpath +$1`
pwd
find . -print -delete
modify to taste
-mo
On 11/25/12 7:15 PM, Jeffrey Honig wrote:
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Ken Hornstein k...@pobox.com
mailto:k...@pobox.com wrote:
I'm
rmm: more than 998 messages for rmmproc exec
So ... looks like this has been that way forever. Right now all
calls to execve() and friends are limited to MAXARGS arguments
(which is currently defined as 1000). Ok, 1 for argv[0], one for
the trailing NULL, that's how we end up at 998.
As I
What-ho Ken!
rmm: more than 998 messages for rmmproc exec
So ... looks like this has been that way forever. Right now all calls
to execve() and friends are limited to MAXARGS arguments (which is
currently defined as 1000). Ok, 1 for argv[0], one for the trailing
NULL, that's how we
27 matches
Mail list logo
