* Bill Stoddard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry, I have no time to spend on it. From a quick look at the code, it > seems that it is possible for the errfn to log header fields which is why I > choose to escape the string.
Sure... > Why wouldn't you want to escape the string just > to be safe? The errfn is only called on a (hopefully) infrequently > encountered error path, so performance shouldn't be an issue. What other > reasons would there be for not escaping the string? To prevent an > 'obfuscated' error message? Exactly. That's the reason why the switch exists (and was introduced when we started to escape the errorlog). If you're running a development system, the switch can help a lot. nd -- Real programmers confuse Christmas and Halloween because DEC 25 = OCT 31. -- Unknown (found in ssl_engine_mutex.c)