Phil Pennock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2006-03-22 at 15:02 +0100, Nicolas KOWALSKI wrote:
>> Does this looks good enough/reliable for you ?
>
> The only serious problem is that any Perl going into production use
> really should have warnings turned on. warnings + strict. And taint,
> if d
On 2006-03-22 at 15:02 +0100, Nicolas KOWALSKI wrote:
> Does this looks good enough/reliable for you ?
The only serious problem is that any Perl going into production use
really should have warnings turned on. warnings + strict. And taint,
if dealing with untrusted data. This especially applies
Phil Pennock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2006-03-21 at 21:53 +0100, Nicolas KOWALSKI wrote:
>> From time to time, the procmail delivery transports fails because
>> procmail terminates with a sigsegv. Our problem is that this generates
>> a permanent error, and the original mail is lost.
>>
>
On 2006-03-21 at 21:53 +0100, Nicolas KOWALSKI wrote:
> From time to time, the procmail delivery transports fails because
> procmail terminates with a sigsegv. Our problem is that this generates
> a permanent error, and the original mail is lost.
>
> How can we change such errors as temporary ones
Hello,
>From time to time, the procmail delivery transports fails because
procmail terminates with a sigsegv. Our problem is that this generates
a permanent error, and the original mail is lost.
How can we change such errors as temporary ones ?
Some details:
- Exim 4.52, running on Debian sarge
