incoming.conf: patterns: & SMBUF
kondou at nec.co.jp
Sat Feb 12 12:25:24 UTC 2000
In article <email@example.com>,
Todd Olson <tco2 at cornell.edu> wrote;
} on the patterns: line. Is there any fundamental reason to not allow
} arbitrarily long patterns: lines via continuations in incoming.conf ???
Innd will call wildmat() for the number of patterns
in incoming.conf for each article, and this means
innd consumes more cpu time. I don't think it's
good idea to reject those, but it should not be fed
by your peer, since this will never reduce band
width of your line.
More information about the inn-workers