From owner-freebsd-security Mon Mar 15 9:38: 3 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from rembrandt.esys.ca (rembrandt.esys.ca [198.161.92.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9589D14DF4 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 09:37:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from lyndon@execmail.ca) Received: from execmail.ca (zappa.esys.ca [198.161.92.28]) by rembrandt.esys.ca (2.1/8.9.1/Execmail 2.1) with ESMTP id KAA23858; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 10:37:18 -0700 Message-Id: <199903151737.KAA23858@rembrandt.esys.ca> Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 10:37:15 -0700 From: Lyndon Nerenberg Subject: Re: ACL's To: robert+freebsd@cyrus.watson.org Cc: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > I think hard links are neat, et al, but I really don't think they add any > new useful functionality above symlinks, and they can certainly introduce > new problems. They save a little disk space here and there (as long as > you don't recursive move anything)... I beg to differ. Our mailstore product uses hard links extensively to reduce disk usage when a message is delivered to multiple recipients. In a corporate environment where someone mails a 50MB MIME message to 100 recipients, the ability to hardlink 99 of those copies makes a *big* difference. Hard links are a very powerful tool that can trip you up if used incorrectly. Just like most things in UNIX can be misused. --lyndon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message