If he worked for Microsoft the number would be something like 32 ;P And
then he would say it worked find for us, so it's a problem on your end.
On 31 Jul 2000, at 11:54, Phil Pennock wrote:
Date sent: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 11:54:53 +0200
From: Phil Pennock <Phil.Pennock@???>
To: Exim Users <exim-users@???>
Subject: Re: [Exim] message filters and filter string length
> On 2000-07-31 at 09:31 +0100, Philip Hazel gifted us with:
> > On Sun, 30 Jul 2000, Phil Pennock wrote:
> > > filter.c has a stack-stored buffer[256] in read_condition(). This size, via
> > > sizeof(), is then passed to the function nextitem(). However, a large
> > > number of exim functions (in other files) also use a hard-coded 256
> > > character array. So - is it safe to simply increase the size of this one
> > > buffer in read_condition()?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> *phew*
>
> Thanks - new version running, seems fine.
>
> > I'll review this. 256 seemed big at the time.
>
> :^) Sure that you don't work for Microsoft? *ducks fast*
> --
> "We've got a patent on the conquering of a country through the use of force.
> We believe in world peace through extortionate license fees." -Bluemeat
>
>
---
Jason Robertson
Network Analyst
jason@???
http://www.astroadvice.com
