On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Daniel Lorch wrote:
Hi Andi,
Are you sure you should be using malloc()/free() and not emalloc()/efree()?
Also please use strlcpy() instead of strncpy(). (Weird I mentioned it twice
in one day :)
http://www.courtesan.com/todd/papers/strlcpy.html
Probably there
hi,
Somehow this is starting to annoy me -- sorry for the unnecessary noise I
am causing on this list. I just thought people who are having the same problem
would be looking on marc.theaimsgroup.com or google and find a possible fix.
I'm not forcing anyone to use it.
Setting Return-Path is
Hi Andi,
Are you sure you should be using malloc()/free() and not emalloc()/efree()?
Also please use strlcpy() instead of strncpy(). (Weird I mentioned it twice
in one day :)
http://www.courtesan.com/todd/papers/strlcpy.html
Probably there are even more things broken in my patch :) I'm
Are you sure you should be using malloc()/free() and not
emalloc()/efree()? Also please use strlcpy() instead of strncpy().
(Weird I mentioned it twice in one day :)
http://www.courtesan.com/todd/papers/strlcpy.html
Probably there are even more things broken in my patch :) I'm quite new
to
hi,
Good because I havn't seen any positive responses to this and I'm still
negative on it.
You don't have to use it.
Apart from disagreement with the prinicipal here I'd also ask: Where is
the portion of the patch to support Win32 SMTP via the MAPI interface?
((as opposed to sendmail_path
At 21:06 7-12-2002, you wrote:
A more generalized fix would be to append the Return-Path to the headers
string at the top of the php_mail function so that it's caught by both the
sendmail block and by the TSendMail call (MAPI).
Setting Return-Path is useless. It's stripped by sendmail, unless
