* 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)
