Re: dropping long, long header fields (was Re: why is this failing?)

[http://dummy.us.eu.org/robert (robert)]

 > From: Jim Osborn <http://www.eskimo.com/~jimo>
 > Date: Wed  Dec 23,  7:18pm
 >
 > I assume you're familiar with the c flag in formail, to concatenate
 > continued fields?

Yes, but why would I want to use that?  Wouldn't that be even worse?

 > Also, there's a linebuf length that the whole
 > recipe has to fit into.  You can increase it if needed.  Check the
 > man page for the exact name.

LINEBUF seems only to be for lines in the rc file itself.  True, some are
long, but not terribly so.  I still think it was due to a long header field.
I wish the header didn't get deleted so I could reproduce it! :(

 > Jim
 > 
 > >Hi.  I had some problems with some long header fields.  "formail" seems to
 > >drop long header fields completely.  I'm not sure if "formail" was
 > >crashing (I don't know where it could've put the core file; it was
 > >processing the mail in a procmail script).  I tried looking at the man
 > >page for formail and it doesn't indicate that there is any maximum limit
 > >to the size of the RFC822 header (does it store it in memory?).
 > >
 > >I couldn't find this issue addressed in the FAQs I saw.
 > >
 > >I'm using Linux 2.0.32 with the Slackware-installed procmail (3.11pre7).
 > >
 > >Thanks.
 > >
 > > > From: era eriksson <http://www.iki.fi/~era> 
 > > > Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 16:48:08 +0300 (EET DST) 
 > > > 
 > > . . .