From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <kyle@kyleam.com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-ASN: AS16276 91.121.0.0/16
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_NONE,
	SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2
Received: from out1.migadu.com (out1.migadu.com [91.121.223.63])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B14DF1F4B4
	for <meta@public-inbox.org>; Sat, 10 Apr 2021 04:06:32 +0000 (UTC)
X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers.
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kyleam.com; s=key1;
	t=1618027590;
	h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id:
	 to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type:
	 in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references;
	bh=UuE7ZClxLd8KDOb6UeVnGoJYp6+ynqtABaeHE0XjB4A=;
	b=JrEQIpeiVbL9vA7rRSKcjSdts19LegMwoTY4zgEhzCbeA+l2YerZrihKawhkiClh2fiZHH
	TnXiyBdmjkNIeRMHWVLT29w59XAOnd67syfDUKwV2iGkna+IIeMbfyKkP5xHzZP5d/QtKs
	0EXD4rdSKWS7Ak/bTel3dUGnpPnpWgYdy5r6YI06LoTkwXn4QRpZjZ8dq7uUogmerk8JBL
	8lXGYclBC49hxTZAMibOUhHNFRZJVjb9jiSbyCWwVAAugSglKq66V6BXKIHuRI/jU8B5vO
	s3KNdOLzwEoqzjWkgIJkV488m0fWqNSKeblxHsPmxpBp0CHAaHge/OaM+fvg+A==
From: Kyle Meyer <kyle@kyleam.com>
To: Eric Wong <e@80x24.org>
Cc: meta@public-inbox.org
Subject: Re: archive links broken with obfuscate=true
In-Reply-To: <20210409233700.GA11190@dcvr>
References: <87a6q8p5qa.fsf@kyleam.com> <20210409102129.GA16787@dcvr>
 <87zgy7rs9q.fsf@kyleam.com> <20210409233700.GA11190@dcvr>
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2021 00:06:29 -0400
Message-ID: <87sg3ysrzu.fsf@kyleam.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT
X-Migadu-Auth-User: kyle@kyleam.com
List-Id: <meta.public-inbox.org>

Eric Wong writes:

> Have you run any performance tests?

No.  To get an idea of how to approach that, would you suggest I look at
xt/perf-msgview.t?

> I'm actually more worried about the '0' (of '{0,}') or '*' being
> combined with '?'.  I can't remember if there's a pathological
> case in that...

Ah, okay, sorry for missing that.

> The upper bound of N is a smaller concern, especially for
> non-spam messages which only have non-space tokens of reasonable
> length.
>
> Maybe changing the three existing '+' to {1,M} would be a way to
> ameliorate the problem (though I'm not sure what a good value of
> M would be, 255?).

Me neither, though I suspect 255 would be sufficient.