SEO

this one seems to be of non-stupendous value,
but barring me misunderstanding, does it make
the code more consistent with itself?

basically, in the switch/case (that is probably the
wrong term to use) in main(), -c gets its argument
tested against MAXCON, but -B doesn't. after the
switch/case is over, there's an if test for
if we're not greylisting, make maxblack = maxcon,
else if maxblack > maxcon then belch usage().

since maxblack and maxcon are both set to be equal
to the value of MAXCON up above, is the reason to
do this if test at the bottom something like:

- if we're not greylisting, just set it to whatever
maxcon is so that we don't have some unreasonably
high value in maxblack down the road
- if we are greylisting, make sure it's not too big.

if so, by virtue of maxblack already being set to
equal MAXCON earlier on, does it make sense to put
the same 'if (i > MAXCON)' test in the 'B' case as
'c' gets?

( also, as an aside, is there merit in checking that
the args to B and c are 'or less than one' ? )


Index: spamd.c
================================================== =================
RCS file: /cvs/src/libexec/spamd/spamd.c,v
retrieving revision 1.83
diff -u -u -r1.83 spamd.c
--- spamd.c 15 May 2006 16:47:48 -0000 1.83
+++ spamd.c 13 Nov 2006 04:37:44 -0000
@@ -970,6 +970,8 @@
break;
case 'B':
i = atoi(optarg);
+ if (i > MAXCON)
+ usage();
maxblack = i;
break;
case 'c':
@@ -1036,11 +1038,6 @@
break;
}
}
-
- if (!greylist)
- maxblack = maxcon;
- else if (maxblack > maxcon)
- usage();

rlp.rlim_cur = rlp.rlim_max = maxcon + 15;
if (setrlimit(RLIMIT_NOFILE, &rlp) == -1)




--

jared