I tried both examples on
debian sid x86_64, mutt 1.5.10-1
debian sarge x86, mutt 1.5.9-2
All four combinations (two mailboxes, two debian systems)
ran normally, no crashes or any other unusual behavior.
So this might not apply to debian at all.
- Larry
--8t9RHnE3ZwKMSgU+
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-ID: <20050826232838 .GA29940@ lrd5-64>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 16:28:38 -0700
From: Larry Doolittle <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: doesn't reproduce on my debian box
--8t9RHnE3ZwKMSgU+ Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-
I read the full-disclosure post, and its reply. www.derkeiler. com/Mailing- Lists/Full- Disclosure/ 2005-08/ 0600.html
http://
Two example mailboxes are given (one in each post),
and it is suggested that the problem is triggered
by a library runtime version mismatch.
I tried both examples on
debian sid x86_64, mutt 1.5.10-1
debian sarge x86, mutt 1.5.9-2
All four combinations (two mailboxes, two debian systems)
ran normally, no crashes or any other unusual behavior.
So this might not apply to debian at all.
- Larry
--8t9RHnE3ZwKMSgU+ pgp-signature; name="signature .asc" Description: Digital signature Disposition: inline
Content-Type: application/
Content-
Content-
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
jRKts7ewRApdjAJ 9Ex4mDo3/ 3/cbD1Zb3pRkHTg UEbACfSa3S /at6kLYA=
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDD6WmPCV
XDDf9HjKu0lDDfT
=obUk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--8t9RHnE3ZwKMS gU+--