Displaying 7 results from an estimated 7 matches for "aspf".
Did you mean:
asp
2017 Aug 24
3
dmarc report faild ?
...gt;caloro.ch:1503564302</report_id>
<date_range>
<begin>1503477902</begin>
<end>1503564302</end>
</date_range>
</report_metadata>
<policy_published>
<domain>caloro.ch</domain>
<adkim>s</adkim>
<aspf>s</aspf>
<p>none</p>
<sp>none</sp>
<pct>100</pct>
</policy_published>
<record>
<row>
<source_ip>94.237.32.243</source_ip>
<count>1</count>
<policy_evaluated>
<disposition&g...
2019 Jan 25
0
[klibc:update-dash] [BUILTIN] Handle embedded NULs correctly in printf
...+40,7 @@
#include <string.h>
#include <unistd.h>
-static int conv_escape_str(char *);
+static int conv_escape_str(char *, char **);
static char *conv_escape(char *, int *);
static int getchr(void);
#ifdef HAVE_STRTOD
@@ -75,6 +75,53 @@ static char **gargv;
} \
}
+#define ASPF(sp, f, func) ({ \
+ int ret; \
+ switch ((char *)param - (char *)array) { \
+ default: \
+ ret = xasprintf(sp, f, array[0], array[1], func); \
+ break; \
+ case sizeof(*param): \
+ ret = xasprintf(sp, f, array[0], func); \
+ break; \
+ case 0: \
+ ret = xasprintf(sp, f, func); \
+ break; \
+...
2020 Mar 28
0
[klibc:update-dash] dash: [BUILTIN] Handle embedded NULs correctly in printf
...+40,7 @@
#include <string.h>
#include <unistd.h>
-static int conv_escape_str(char *);
+static int conv_escape_str(char *, char **);
static char *conv_escape(char *, int *);
static int getchr(void);
#ifdef HAVE_STRTOD
@@ -75,6 +75,53 @@ static char **gargv;
} \
}
+#define ASPF(sp, f, func) ({ \
+ int ret; \
+ switch ((char *)param - (char *)array) { \
+ default: \
+ ret = xasprintf(sp, f, array[0], array[1], func); \
+ break; \
+ case sizeof(*param): \
+ ret = xasprintf(sp, f, array[0], func); \
+ break; \
+ case 0: \
+ ret = xasprintf(sp, f, func); \
+ break; \
+...
2019 Jan 25
0
[klibc:update-dash] builtin: Fix echo performance regression
..., &q);
+ p = stackblock();
+ len = q - p;
+ total = len - 1;
+
+ if (f[1] == 's')
+ goto easy;
- p = makestrspace(len, p);
- memset(p, 'X', len - 1);
- p[len - 1] = 0;
+ p = makestrspace(len, q);
+ memset(p, 'X', total);
+ p[total] = 0;
q = stackblock();
total = ASPF(&p, f, p);
len = strchrnul(p, 'X') - p;
- memcpy(p + len, q, strchrnul(p + len, ' ') - (p + len));
+ memcpy(p + len, q, strspn(p + len, "X"));
+easy:
out1mem(p, total);
popstackmark(&smark);
2020 Mar 28
0
[klibc:update-dash] dash: builtin: Fix echo performance regression
..., &q);
+ p = stackblock();
+ len = q - p;
+ total = len - 1;
+
+ if (f[1] == 's')
+ goto easy;
- p = makestrspace(len, p);
- memset(p, 'X', len - 1);
- p[len - 1] = 0;
+ p = makestrspace(len, q);
+ memset(p, 'X', total);
+ p[total] = 0;
q = stackblock();
total = ASPF(&p, f, p);
len = strchrnul(p, 'X') - p;
- memcpy(p + len, q, strchrnul(p + len, ' ') - (p + len));
+ memcpy(p + len, q, strspn(p + len, "X"));
+easy:
out1mem(p, total);
popstackmark(&smark);
2019 Feb 10
2
offtopic: rant about thoughtless enabling DMARC checks
On 10/02/2019 07:38, Ralph Seichter via dovecot wrote:
> * Juri Haberland via dovecot:
>
>> Blindly enabling DMARC checks without thinking about the consequences
>> for themselves should not be the problem of other well behaving
>> participants.
>
> Can you judge if DMARC is enabled "blindly"? No, I thought not. Also,
> the issue was not on the
2019 Feb 10
3
offtopic: rant about thoughtless enabling DMARC checks
...mailing list whitelist will be problematic, do work it
needs to look for specific list type hidden headers, spammers and
nasties will incorporate those headers into their trash that
impersonates mailing lists and voila, they pass. there is no quick and
easy fix to the dmarc mess other than p=none aspf=s (DKIM is another one
that gets narky at lists, and despite all the spf haters dreams, I've
never had a problem with spf and lists, and we were an early beta
adopter of spf)
--
Kind Regards,
Noel Butler
This Email, including any attachments, may contain legally privileged
information...