Re: [Nmh-workers] Reply-to header in my replcoms

2017-08-20 Thread Robert Elz
Date:Sun, 20 Aug 2017 08:56:28 -0700 From:n...@dad.org Message-ID: <201708201556.v7kfutmv083...@shell1.rawbw.com> | I am attaching what I believe to be the replcomps I'm using. How should I | modify it? Delete the Reply-To: (or at least the default value). Reply

[Nmh-workers] Reply-to header in my replcoms

2017-08-20 Thread norm
Ken Hornstein writes: > >Man, Norm, I wish your replcomps would use the Reply-to header, but anyway I am attaching what I believe to be the replcomps I'm using. How should I modify it? Norman Shapiro %(lit)%(formataddr %<{reply-to}%?{from}%?{sender}%?{return-path}%>)\ %<(nonnull)%(void(width

Re: [Nmh-workers] mhstore dumps core

2017-08-20 Thread Ralph Corderoy
Hi again David, > ./configure \ > CC='ccache cc' \ > CFLAGS='-g -O3 -std=c99 -pedantic -pedantic-errors -Werror > -fdiagnostics-color=auto' \ > -C \ It's the -C that's significant. Without it, the second make doesn't loose _GNU_SOURCE. But I'd like a cache as it's not

Re: [Nmh-workers] mhstore dumps core

2017-08-20 Thread Ralph Corderoy
Hi David, > > > Should I cherry-pick that to 1.7-release, also? > > > > Please. I still have problems. make superclean ./autogen.sh rm -f config.cache ./configure \ CC='ccache cc' \ CFLAGS='-g -O3 -std=c99 -pedantic -pedantic-errors -Werror -fdiagnostics-color=au

Re: [Nmh-workers] mhstore dumps core

2017-08-20 Thread David Levine
Ralph wrote: > What's the semantic difference? One can be specified by the user, and > the AM_* is what configure (automake) works out is required? Yes, where "works out is required" comes from configure.ac and whatever it pulls in, rather than configure itself. > > Should I cherry-pick that to

Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail

2017-08-20 Thread Ralph Corderoy
Hi David, > Any objection to removing "nmh" from before "messages" from at least > some of these? ... > Does anyone have time to go through the others? Doing it now. -- Cheers, Ralph. https://plus.google.com/+RalphCorderoy ___ Nmh-workers mailing lis

Re: [Nmh-workers] mhstore dumps core

2017-08-20 Thread Ralph Corderoy
Hi David, > configure.ac added -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE to AM_CPPFLAGS. I just changed > that to CPPFLAGS on master, that'll reduce the force with which we (I) > try to impose it. What's the semantic difference? One can be specified by the user, and the AM_* is what configure (automake) works out is r

Re: [Nmh-workers] mhstore dumps core

2017-08-20 Thread David Levine
I wrote: > configure.ac doesn't add -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE if CFLAGS contains -O0, but > that can be easily fooled at compile time. configure.ac added -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE to AM_CPPFLAGS. I just changed that to CPPFLAGS on master, that'll reduce the force with which we (I) try to impose it. Should I ch

Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail

2017-08-20 Thread David Levine
Ralph wrote: > Hi Paul, > > > isn't that sort of the point of mhfixmsg? to fix poorly or illegally > > formatted email? > > Good point, but I think it uses the stock nmh code for parsing emails > rather than have it own code that is cluttered with wart handling. Yes. mhparse works quite nicely

Re: [Nmh-workers] Minor Thing About the Welcome Message.

2017-08-20 Thread David Levine
Ralph wrote: > I don't know if this is the right fix. I don't either. mhparse is long overdue for a good sanitizing. > Frankly, after staring at functions that take a pointer to a struct > with an FILE pointer and a filename, and also a couple of pointers to > return a filename and a file descr

Re: [Nmh-workers] mhstore dumps core

2017-08-20 Thread David Levine
Ralph wrote: > With -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2: > -O0 Compile fails; optimisation needed. configure.ac doesn't add -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE if CFLAGS contains -O0, but that can be easily fooled at compile time. > So valgrind looks best with -O2, but gcc spots some problems itself at > -O3 if no