From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 ; 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 To: Eric Wong 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: 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.