[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: mhbuild and long header fields
From: |
Philipp |
Subject: |
Re: mhbuild and long header fields |
Date: |
Sat, 19 Aug 2023 17:39:35 +0200 |
[2023-08-18 21:48] David Levine <levinedl@acm.org>
> > I have noticed that mhbuild don't implement header field folding.
> > Specialy for the References field this might cause problems, when you
> > use it to feed a mail build by mhbuild to a tool which checks the
> > line length.
>
> Thank you for pointing that out. Header field folding does need to
> be properly implemented. It would be a great contribution if someone
> has the bandwidth.
I have looked a bit at it. I found two places where this could be
implemented:
Either as part of encode_rfc2047(), this function does this allready,
but only if a non ascii char is in the field body.
Or in output_headers(). I'm not sure if there an extra options would
be required.
> > Also I don't get the code. In uip/mhbuildsbr.c:359 a LENERR is handled
> > with die(), but I can't create a testcase for this.
>
> A draft with a header field name exceeding 997 bytes in length should
> trigger LENERR. The only code that sets a LENERR is in m_getfld().
> So the draft would trigger is in any nmh command that reads a message
> header, such as scan(1):
Thanks for pointing this out, but now I'm more confused. Whats the point
of LENERR (in contrast to FMTERR)? But this is a diffrent discussion.
Philipp
> $ (printf '%.sX' {1..997}; printf ': too-long\n') | scan -file -
> scan: field name
> "XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX:"
> exceeds 997 bytes
> ??Format error (message -1) in component 1
> 1 08/18/23*
>
> David
>
- mhbuild and long header fields, Philipp, 2023/08/17
- Re: mhbuild and long header fields, David Levine, 2023/08/18
- Re: mhbuild and long header fields,
Philipp <=
- Re: mhbuild and long header fields, Ken Hornstein, 2023/08/19
- Re: mhbuild and long header fields, David Levine, 2023/08/20
- Re: mhbuild and long header fields, Philipp, 2023/08/23
- Re: mhbuild and long header fields, David Levine, 2023/08/23
- Re: mhbuild and long header fields, Philipp Takacs, 2023/08/24
- Re: mhbuild and long header fields, Philipp, 2023/08/25
- Re: mhbuild and long header fields, Steffen Nurpmeso, 2023/08/25
- Re: mhbuild and long header fields, Steffen Nurpmeso, 2023/08/25
- Re: mhbuild and long header fields, Philipp, 2023/08/25
- Re: mhbuild and long header fields, David Levine, 2023/08/26