At 10:08 +0000 12/20/2002, Philip Hazel wrote:
>An alternative is to provide a signal handler for the common crash
>errors such as SIGSEGV and write to the log from inside the handler.
>
>Hmm. I wonder if Exim itself should set up such a signal handler before
>it calls local_scan? Perhaps it should. I'll think about that one.
Having Exim include such a signal handler would give you a good opportunity
to clean up from failed local_scans and announce them.
Naturally, no one would put a broken local_scan() into production [ ;-) ],
but it would certainly help on the sandbox machines used for testing new
Exim configurations.
By the way, I found your recent proof that 13 is indeed unlucky rather
clever. ;-)
--John
--
John Baxter Port Ludlow, WA, USA
I am NOT out of the office. I will respond if and when I get around to it.
