From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: by 10.90.117.16 with SMTP id p16cs457890agc; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 04:42:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.224.48.19 with SMTP id p19mr2823705qaf.165.1257165736658; Mon, 02 Nov 2009 04:42:16 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from rubyforge.org (rubyforge.org [205.234.109.19]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 3si7392213qyk.0.2009.11.02.04.42.16; Mon, 02 Nov 2009 04:42:16 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of sup-talk-bounces@rubyforge.org designates 205.234.109.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=205.234.109.19; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of sup-talk-bounces@rubyforge.org designates 205.234.109.19 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=sup-talk-bounces@rubyforge.org Received: from rubyforge.org (rubyforge.org [127.0.0.1]) by rubyforge.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BD4416782B4; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 07:42:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from entry.masanjin.net (masanjin.net [209.20.72.13]) by rubyforge.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59BCF18582CE for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 07:35:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from w by entry.masanjin.net with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1N4w81-0007JZ-6Y for sup-talk@rubyforge.org; Mon, 02 Nov 2009 04:35:21 -0800 From: William Morgan To: Sup-talk mailing list In-reply-to: <1257162594-sup-7077@masanjin.net> References: <1256939095-sup-4201@masanjin.net> <1257087035-sup-2014@masanjin.net> <1257162594-sup-7077@masanjin.net> Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 04:35:21 -0800 Message-Id: <1257165314-sup-679@masanjin.net> User-Agent: Sup/git Subject: Re: [sup-talk] Recovering a busted ferret db? X-BeenThere: sup-talk@rubyforge.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: User & developer discussion of Sup List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: sup-talk-bounces@rubyforge.org Errors-To: sup-talk-bounces@rubyforge.org Reformatted excerpts from William Morgan's message of 2009-11-02: > I'm going to apply the patch, but with a bigger limit. Actually, strike that. The patch would mean we effectively limit the number of recipients in a to, cc, or bcc field, which seems crazy. It would be better to reimplement the regexp as a little state machine, as irritating as that might be. Steven, can you privately send me the header that's causing this? You can obscure it somewhat if you want, just leave the quotes and commas alone. -- William _______________________________________________ sup-talk mailing list sup-talk@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/sup-talk