Re: sender rewriting fixed and other misc things

[Eugene Crosser <crosser@online.ru>]

On 30-Dec-00 at 14:20, Matti Aarnio (mea@nic.funet.fi) wrote:

>      Having a sore throat and persistent cough makes life miserable...
>      ... not to mention the fractured shoulder I caught while trying
>      to have snow-fun with my silicon valley friends.

Poor you!  Not big fun...

> > 3. X-Envelope-To: contains irrelevant figure for uid (nobody's?)
> 
>      In case of pipe runs or file storages it should be indicative
>      of what privilege is used to run the injection.  For mailbox
>      injection things work differently, of course.

Not pipes!  That's what is written into user's mailbox.
The mailbox file itself, if it needs to be created, has correct
owner, but the value in the X-Envelope-To is incorrect.

> > I think that I found the cause of mailbox processes infinitely growing,
> > at least one case.
> 
>    What you found is likely real, but not very long-time thing.
>    Related stuff was committed on 14 November 2000, and I recall
>    you mentioning this growth problem before than that...
> 
>    ... but it can also have been that around that time the original
>    problem was cured by rewriting header handling (which was terribly
>    muddy -- not just somewhat muddy...)

I think that may be the case.  Actually behavior *changed*.  Previously
I ended up with "finitely" big processes and mail passed through (or
dropped, I don't know for sure).  At this time, one process was growing
"infinitely" and offending mail stayed in the queue and after restart
this scenario repeated.  Which actually allowed me to catch the offender.

>   That is just part of it.  Other part is that at the linear-comment
>   scanner all kinds of controls must be skipped. (Thus preventing
>   arrival into _skip_822atom()  with bad pointer.)

That's what I was trying to say :)

Eugene