On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Michael Haardt wrote:
> The patch below is not tested and please do not commit it. I would
> be glad if you could just have a look at it and tell me if there is
> something obvious I forgot or screwed up. I just can't remember what
> stopped us last year from an easy hack like this.
I will look at it, but not for some days. I suspect, however, that what
bothered me was the increase in size of the address_item structure,
because it's quite big already and I'm wary about making it bigger.
There is no problem for a message with only a few recipients, but people
have mailing lists that expand into thousands of addresses, in which
case each increase uses 1000s times the memory increase. But maybe I'm
too paranoid.
At one point I also had a long-term plan not to copy these values into
separate expansion variables, but to have a new type that picked the
data out of an address_item structure. But I've never got round to doing
that.
One other comment: your patch appears to cope only with suffixes. Any
such change must also handle prefixes, for consistency.
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
Get the Exim 4 book: http://www.uit.co.uk/exim-book
