>>45,46
Thanks for the repo update.
so they should be safe
OK, then. I see that string->number returns #f on invalid inputs, so >>44 and similar are harmless 404s. A resource utilization test for string->number:
>>> ">>1-" + "9" * (4096 - 4)Since irregex claims to support PCRE ranges
http://synthcode.com/scheme/irregex/#SECTION_3.3
if this causes a spike it can be mitigated by switching the range regex numbers from [1-9][0-9]* to [1-9][0-9]{0,2} with the limit raised when *max-posts* gains digits.
I also have a nerd rant about filter-func/posts-range design for another post.