On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 12:54:20 -0800, Carl Worth <cworth at cworth.org> wrote: > And I'm glad I did because that turned up a bug in the patch, (using > == instead of != for the return value of strcasestr resulted in *all* > messages with a Reply-To header being considered as munged).
Yikes, I've been using this thing for two months and hadn't noticed. > Here's one cleanup I made which you might find interesting as a style > issue (where I prefer naming a function based on what it *does* rather > than on what it's being *used* for): Yup, I do the same, but must have been too lazy to think of a decent name. Jed
