On Thursday 27 May 2004 04:26 am, Tonix wrote: > Tobias, > > it looks like there is a "trust" against this patch, just saying > generically it's ugly, but not beeing able to say why, and not beeing > able, mainly, to make another one working. > > This patch is highly responding to DJ security and programming models, > while all the rest around (including vpopmail) is not, so all the attacks > are without comprension (or people attacking does not understand what is > speaking about).
*ahem* +#include <stdio.h> > This patch is running in hundreds of productions sites since more than two > years (without a bug and without any performance problem), and I'm > receiving dozen of e-mails, each month, thanking for it. I continually see reports of 'false positives' on this mailing list. Not to mention my first experience with this patch it wasn't even a unified diff, therefore I had to apply it against a fresh qmail tarball and make a real diff out of it before I could apply it against the qmail tarball I was building. I don't like how it determines the 'catchall' either, however, that's not a problem with the patch, that's a problem with how vpopmail determines how it's supposed to handle deliveries to unknown user accounts/aliases. -Jeremy -- Jeremy Kitchen ++ Systems Administrator ++ Inter7 Internet Technologies, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ++ www.inter7.com ++ 866.528.3530 ++ 847.492.0470 int'l kitchen @ #qmail #gentoo on EFnet ++ scriptkitchen.com/qmail