; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nigel Horne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ; wrote: ; ; > 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.
Apologies, I should have caveated the first statement with 'from my perspective'. The rest of my comment still stands though. A. _______________________________________________ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
