Daryl C. W. O'Shea writes: > Justin Mason wrote: > > another way where SpamAssassin rules could be used to execute > > arbitrary code... > > I'll buy lunch for whoever can control exactly what arbitrary code is > executed using only SA rules. :)
a bold claim! ;) > > [...] In which > > case, you were already open to denial of service attacks from patterns that > > bust the C stack (fixed by Dave for 5.10) > > That sounds good for us. yeah, 5.10 is a big improvement in general for us -- a lot faster than 5.8, too. --j.
