On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 12:54:20 -0800, Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> wrote:
> And I'm glad I did because that turned up a bug in the patch, (using
> == instead of != for the return value of strcasestr resulted in *all*
> messages with a Reply-To header being considered as munged).

Yikes, I've been using this thing for two months and hadn't noticed.

> Here's one cleanup I made which you might find interesting as a style
> issue (where I prefer naming a function based on what it *does* rather
> than on what it's being *used* for):

Yup, I do the same, but must have been too lazy to think of a decent name.

Jed