On 10-01-13 22:43, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > On 1/10/2013 3:16 PM, Tom Hendrikx wrote: >> Since I wrap spamc with a different programming language, I have all >> the tools available to handle any error condition: detecting EX_TOOBIG >> is however not possible. > > I don't understand this as I use MD to call spamc. Why can't you just > check the file size prior to calling sa?
Because I don't want to maintain the maxsize in two places? Because I still want to catch the error when someone lowers only the maxsize settings because he did not RTFM? I want to handle the error as spamc throws it at me, implementing a second safety net is a waste. Given enough development time and cpu cycles, I could safeguard against all possible errors that spamc is able to return before I actually execute it, but it would be easier to just build a new version of spamc in stead. > > Otherwise, like I said, now's the time to open a bug and work on a patch > if you are interested in this. Yes, that is why I was discussing the different options available. Adding another 17 switches for different scenarios is ugly, the existing 6(!) already look disappointingly overcomplicated to me. So I'd be happy to contribute a patch that contains an elegant solution, but not another kludge that fixes only my stupid little issue but makes matters worse in the long run. As said, creating a kludge in the surrounding code is just as ugly, but much faster. -- Tom
