On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 16:12:08 +0000 in [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nigel Horne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 17 Feb 2005 16:07, Andy Fiddaman wrote: > > > The problem with the old limit was that it was hard coded and so was > > the behaviour when it was exceeded (IIRC it used to just not scan > > the additional nested parts). I can't understand why adding this > > option with configurable behaviour would be a problem, and I'd be > > happy to submit a patch if it has a chance of being accepted! > > Wrong. The problem with the old limit was that it existed. You weren't > on the receiving end of the sometimes nasty emails, so why are you > making the above statement. > So if there were a configurable limit that could vary from no limit at all to a user defined limit suited to a given installation it ought to be OK. Those that sent the nasty emails should realise that very little happens when volunteers are nastygrammed. -- Brian Morrison bdm at fenrir dot org dot uk GnuPG key ID DE32E5C5 - http://wwwkeys.uk.pgp.net/pgpnet/wwwkeys.html _______________________________________________ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
