From owner-freebsd-isp Wed Apr 23 23:06:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id XAA18159 for isp-outgoing; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 23:06:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unique.usn.blaze.net.au (unique.usn.blaze.net.au [203.17.53.17]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA18128; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 23:05:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unique.usn.blaze.net.au (local [127.0.0.1]) by unique.usn.blaze.net.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA26547; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 16:05:39 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199704240605.QAA26547@unique.usn.blaze.net.au> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0gamma 1/27/96 To: Bradley Dunn cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: longer usernames In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 24 Apr 1997 00:17:13 -0400." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 16:05:39 +1000 From: David Nugent Sender: owner-isp@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > Would it be possible for someone to commit the changes where a length of 8 > was assumed to 2.2? It shouldn't make any visible difference as long as > people keep the headers the same, right? Uh, sure, I guess. In fact, most of the -current code could be merged directly into 2.2 and it would make no difference at all. It was intentionally coded that way, so I guess it would be a good idea to do this. (Since I took care of some of this in -current I'll put it on my todo list :-)). Regards, David Nugent - Unique Computing Pty Ltd - Melbourne, Australia Voice +61-3-9791-9547 Data/BBS +61-3-9792-3507 3:632/348@fidonet davidn@freebsd.org davidn@blaze.net.au http://www.blaze.net.au/~davidn/