On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 09:30 +0200, Lars Stavholm wrote: > Another (mildly stupid maybe) question: why the fork() > in the original dspam plugin? Seems to me that the fork() > + waitpid() doesn't really allow for any advantage over > a simple popen() and read the output? I have a sneaky > feeling that I'm missing something vital here.
popen() uses FILE streams, which I at least try to avoid. For example in some systems (Solaris IIRC) they were limited to 256 first file descriptors. It also executes everything through /bin/sh -c, which is pointless if you're not running a script and possibly dangerous if you're not escaping parameters correctly.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part