Re: Sanitizing attachment file names : too much
On 2006-04-18 17:29:25 +0100, Paul Walker wrote:
> It wasn't implemented correctly, since I got the variables
> slightly wrong, but I think the substitution is a better
> solution than this:
> > + strfcpy (buf, mutt_basename (NONULL (top->filename)), sizeof (buf));
> This discards information; changing / for _ doesn't.
It's actually consistent with what mutt has been doing for a
very long time on the code path that deals with saving an
individual attacahment.
--
Thomas Roessler · Personal soap box at <http://log.does-not-exist.org/>.