Pawel,In my case, it was just before the holidays ;-) I unsubcribed some lit and on of them was the gug list (gimp related). The confirmation I had to send was very long and was truncated.
In this case, I managed to reply to the mail using mutt.But you are right: using such a long field is pushing the thing a bit far.
As a reference, my post on this lsit: http://mail.gnome.org/archives/balsa-list/2004-August/msg00033.html Regards Jean-Luc Le 01.09.2004 09:40:00, Pawel Salek a écrit :
On 08/31/2004 01:57:40 PM, Jean-Luc Coulon (f5ibh) wrote:Le 31.08.2004 01:18:03, Geoffrey Leach a écrit : > This is 2.2.4 >> Replying to a confirmation, I get a bounce because the to address is> truncated. Any ideas on where the problem might be? > > The original address: > amywohls-opinions-sc.1093907112.cemciaeiiiedgpgnfcfm- > geoff=direcway com wohl biglist com I've aleady reported this problem but it seems that it is not the subject but the To: field which is limited.MY impression is somebody pushes mail standards too far. I tried creating such a message and I got following headers (I am afraid balsa will wrap them so I will better attach such a message):Subject: test To:aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa theochem kth se X-Mailer: Balsa 2.2.4The very long user name got split. gmime_parser can construct the message back until certain limit of the "To" field length - if the address gets split as above, gmime will set the internal "To" field to an empty value. I seem to recall there was 75-characters limit for atom length in MIME standard, perhaps the observed problem is related.Other mail program do not accept such a header either. I get with pine:aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa MISSING- HOST-NAME., UNEXPECTED_DATA_AFTER_ADDRESS SYNTAX-ERRORI do not really know what is the sane behaviour in such a case. Pawel
Attachment:
pgpY14Q0IqQto.pgp
Description: PGP signature