[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Nmh-workers] rmmproc Not Used for Lots of Messages; refile Copies.

From: Paul Fox
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] rmmproc Not Used for Lots of Messages; refile Copies.
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 18:24:30 -0500

ken wrote:
 > >so, i've stumbled over rmmproc's limit in the past (and, like others,
 > >have quietly, manually, done it in chunks instead), but i don't think
 > >i've ever seen a similar limit with "rm".  and now i'm wondering, why
 > >not?
 > Well, if you're a young whippersnapper, you wouldn't have seen that :-)

i'm actually a relatively old whippersnapper as these things go:  my
first UNIX was some internal bell labs predecessor to System III,
ca. 1979.  and yes -- i've certainly hit such limits in the past,
and embraced xargs with a vengeance as a result.

but now isn't then.  it's too bad we can't make rmmproc work as well
as a modern rm.   but having just browsed the mh sources a bit, i
begin to see the problem.  as always.  :-)


 > >certainly this works just fine:
 > Depends on the OS.  SunOS 4, that probably would have choked (or maybe it
 > was Irix that had what seemed to me to be a remarkably small argv limit).
 > The limit is hardcoded at MAXARGS (1000), and it's probably been
 > that way for a decade or two; considering the age of the original
 > MH, it's easy to see how that limit probably seemed like it made
 > sense back in the day.  Note that it only applies when you have an
 > external rmmproc; if you don't have one there is no limit.
 > --Ken
 > _______________________________________________
 > Nmh-workers mailing list
 > address@hidden
 > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers

 paul fox, address@hidden (arlington, ma, where it's 33.1 degrees)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]