Re: [Fwd: mutt buffer overflow]

On 2005-08-18 22:32:27 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> So Frank's observation that this might be tied to a particular iconv
> implementation seems to be valid.  Still, the question is if mutt is
> making assumptions that it shouldn't make, or if that iconv
> implementation is broken.

Do you mean that Mutt is making assumptions that are not clearly
documented? I'd say that in doubt, Mutt shouldn't make any assumption,
in particular when there is a risk of buffer overflow.

--

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent <at> vinc17.org> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.org/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / SPACES project at LORIA