On Thursday 17 Feb 2005 16:07, Andy Fiddaman wrote: > The problem with the old limit was that it was hard coded and so was the > behaviour when it was exceeded (IIRC it used to just not scan the > additional nested parts). I can't understand why adding this option with > configurable behaviour would be a problem, and I'd be happy to submit a > patch if it has a chance of being accepted!
Wrong. The problem with the old limit was that it existed. You weren't on the receiving end of the sometimes nasty emails, so why are you making the above statement. > Andy -- Nigel Horne. Arranger, Composer, Typesetter. NJH Music, Barnsley, UK. ICQ#20252325 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bandsman.co.uk _______________________________________________ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
