https://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1749
--- Comment #26 from Zoltan Herczeg ---
Thank you for working on this. However I will probably just drop the current
protected allocator implementation since mprotect does not seems the right way
to support "security enhanced"
https://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1916
--- Comment #6 from Markus Elfring ---
(In reply to Philip Hazel from comment #5)
Was the evaluation of regular expressions ever compared for cases as in my
example with usages of an approach like âMatching algorithm
https://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1916
--- Comment #5 from Philip Hazel ---
(In reply to Markus Elfring from comment #4)
> (In reply to Philip Hazel from comment #3)
>
> This kind of feedback is promising.
>
> * How do you think about to clarify any more improvements
https://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1916
--- Comment #4 from Markus Elfring ---
(In reply to Philip Hazel from comment #3)
This kind of feedback is promising.
* How do you think about to clarify any more improvements around scalability
challenges for special
https://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1916
Philip Hazel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1749
--- Comment #25 from Petr Pisar ---
Created attachment 961
--> https://bugs.exim.org/attachment.cgi?id=961=edit
Attempt to propagate mprotect() failure
Attached patch tries to handle failed mprotect() call so that an application