El 12/02/13 17:35, Thomas Preud'homme escribió:
Le mardi 12 février 2013 17:20:55, Santiago Vila a écrit :
El 12/02/13 16:25, Thomas Preud'homme escribió:
We could indeed. It would be an improvement over the current situation.
What would be even better (IMHO) would be a switch to enable or disa
Le mardi 12 février 2013 17:20:55, Santiago Vila a écrit :
> El 12/02/13 16:25, Thomas Preud'homme escribió:
> > We could indeed. It would be an improvement over the current situation.
> > What would be even better (IMHO) would be a switch to enable or disable
> > this check (like a enforce_plain_t
Le mardi 12 février 2013 17:17:24, Santiago Vila a écrit :
> El 12/02/13 16:25, Thomas Preud'homme escribió:
> > That said, I'd really like to understand what's the objective with this
> > check since it's only performed at request time and no longer after. Is
> > this for memory consumption, spam,
El 12/02/13 16:25, Thomas Preud'homme escribió:
That said, I'd really like to understand what's the objective with this check
since it's only performed at request time and no longer after. Is this for
memory consumption, spam, something else? How is this goal achieved by
enforcing a check at requ
El 12/02/13 16:25, Thomas Preud'homme escribió:
We could indeed. It would be an improvement over the current situation. What
would be even better (IMHO) would be a switch to enable or disable this check
(like a enforce_plain_text) and when disable warn people in case the limit is
reached.
Addin
El 12/02/13 16:25, Thomas Preud'homme escribió:
That said, I'd really like to understand what's the objective with this check
since it's only performed at request time and no longer after. Is this for
memory consumption, spam, something else? How is this goal achieved by
enforcing a check at requ
Le mardi 12 février 2013 14:37:01, Santiago Vila a écrit :
> >
> > Oups sorry. For the second one I failed to compute the correct size: it
> > is the size of the email + 2 answers. The real size is 12870. So I
> > suppose 16384 would be fine.
>
> Hmm, the size of the email + 2 answers?
>
> The l
On Sun, 10 Feb 2013, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
> Le dimanche 10 février 2013 12:24:16, Santiago Vila a écrit :
> >
> > The idea of checking the size, I think, is to prevent the list server
> > from replying to messages which are "obviously of a wrong size".
>
> I see. The problem is to determine
On Sun, 10 Feb 2013, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
> Le dimanche 10 février 2013 13:36:43, Thomas Preud'homme a écrit :
> > Le dimanche 10 février 2013 12:24:16, Santiago Vila a écrit :
> > > The idea of checking the size, I think, is to prevent the list server
> > > from replying to messages which ar
Le dimanche 10 février 2013 13:36:43, Thomas Preud'homme a écrit :
> Le dimanche 10 février 2013 12:24:16, Santiago Vila a écrit :
> > The idea of checking the size, I think, is to prevent the list server
> > from replying to messages which are "obviously of a wrong size".
>
> I see. The problem i
See attached for the 2 emails I got which doesn't pass the 8192 body size
test. As you can see, they don't contain GPG signature but confirmation fail
to work anyway. I send them in private on purpose as I don't want them being
public.
Best regards,
Thomas
CONFIRM s021001565110148.mbox
Descr
Le dimanche 10 février 2013 12:24:16, Santiago Vila a écrit :
>
> The idea of checking the size, I think, is to prevent the list server
> from replying to messages which are "obviously of a wrong size".
I see. The problem is to determine what is a wrong size then. For instance,
GPG signature wil
El 10/02/13 00:48, Thomas Preud'homme escribió:
Package: smartlist
Version: 3.15-22
Severity: normal
Tags: patch upstream
Greetings Santiago,
long time no mail. I was trying out smartlist and I encountered a
problem in the confirmation process: I couldn't get subscribed when
replying to the con
severity 700216 important
thanks
Le dimanche 10 février 2013 00:53:57, Thomas Preud'homme a écrit :
> Le dimanche 10 février 2013 00:48:16, Thomas Preud'homme a écrit :
> > Actually there is a comment saying it but I didn't realize it was
> > talking about the size of the body:
> >
> > # We now c
Le dimanche 10 février 2013 00:48:16, Thomas Preud'homme a écrit :
>
> Actually there is a comment saying it but I didn't realize it was
> talking about the size of the body:
>
> # We now check:
> # If the length is roughly within bounds.
> # That it is not a reply or something.
> #
Package: smartlist
Version: 3.15-22
Severity: normal
Tags: patch upstream
Greetings Santiago,
long time no mail. I was trying out smartlist and I encountered a
problem in the confirmation process: I couldn't get subscribed when
replying to the confirmation mail. After some time trying to understa
16 matches
Mail list logo
