Hello Jakob, Jakob Hirsch <[email protected]> (Fr 11 Jun 2010 09:49:07 CEST): > Heiko Schlittermann, 2010-06-11 08:46: > > > So, to get the long story short: I thinking about having > > > > $message_body_hash_sha1 > > > > (or something similar, the "interface" could be thought about) > > > > What do you think? (I believe, the implementation shouldn't be too > > difficult (\0 are already counted, thus some part of the code seems to > > see the "message stream"). > > Hm, do you really need the _whole_ body? Otherwise, > ${sha1:$message_body} would do what you want (hash the first 500 bytes). > Otherwise I guess you could set message_body_visible to a high enough
Ouhh. The message_body_visible I didn't know. Fine. Beside the possible RAM consumption it *almost* works as expected. (Because $message_body contains a long line with "\n" converted to spaces, doesn't it? - But OTOH if the checking algorithm knows about this convention, it's ok) > number (like message_size_limit), but I'm not sure how efficient Exim is > handling such big strings. OTOH, it probably doesn't matter much on > todays machines, as long as you are not hitting some internal limits > (which I don't know of). If you care about efficiency, you could use dlfunc. > Or is this something useful for other Exim users, too? Could be - in case we have to prove that we didn't change the message after reception (the hash has to be signed, of course). -- Heiko
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
