Re: [Nmh-workers] 128 byte field name limit in NAMESZ breaks scan(1)

[David Levine]

Jeff wrote:

> Peter Maydell <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > 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 :-)
>
> Good catch.  I haven't tested it yet, I need to make sure it works
> properly when entering the realloc code.
>
> > It's also got at least one unrelated change in it:
> > +                       if(uprf(cp, "re:") || uprf(cp, "fw:"))
>
> Ah, part of my pending work on generalizing stripping of Re:, another
> topic.
>
> > 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.
>
> Yes, testing good.
>
> Can the OP send me one of the messages that had issues?

Insert this anywhere in the headers of any message:

1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567:
 "Some Sender"

That name is 127 characters long.  scan will trip over it.

I just committed the NAMESZ increase to 999 and closed bug #14975.

David


> Thanks (=E8=B0=A2=E8=B0=A2).
>
> Jeff

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________