[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-55?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12614335#action_12614335
]
Oleg Kalnichevski commented on MIME4J-55:
-----------------------------------------
> Do you think we have to put a limit somewhere to the boundary length we allow
> to avoid a very long boundary to make
> us allocating very big buffers?
I think it would be much better and cleaner to enforce a max limit on header
length. This would automatically take care of very long boundaries. This said,
can we please take care of fringe cases after 0.4 release? Like _please_?
> About merging code to trunk I'll do this as soon as we solved the
> incomprehension about my use of the branch, I'm sure
> this won't take too much!
As far as I am concerned you should have just committed your changes to trunk
and be done with it. Would it then be a big deal for you to commit the patch to
the streaming-branch so I could go ahead with fixing other outstanding issues?
Oleg
> Infinite loop on very long boundary (7000 chars)
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: MIME4J-55
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-55
> Project: Mime4j
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Stefano Bagnara
> Fix For: 0.4
>
> Attachments: mime4j.patch
>
>
> RFC does not mandate parsing of a boundary of that size, but for sure we
> should avoid an infinite loop.
> I committed very-very-long-boundary.msg as a proof.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
