From owner-freebsd-security Fri Jun 7 17:50:31 1996 Return-Path: owner-security Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id RAA10721 for security-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 17:50:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xmission.xmission.com (softweyr@xmission.xmission.com [198.60.22.2]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA10714 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 17:50:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from softweyr@localhost) by xmission.xmission.com (8.7.5/8.7.5) id SAA15535; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 18:50:13 -0600 (MDT) From: Barnacle Wes Message-Id: <199606080050.SAA15535@xmission.xmission.com> Subject: Re: FreeBSD's /var/mail permissions To: pst@shockwave.com (Paul Traina) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 18:50:12 -0600 (MDT) Cc: security@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199606072105.OAA00533@precipice.shockwave.com> from "Paul Traina" at Jun 7, 96 02:05:23 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > Mail locking, to be effective, must be soley performed through the use of > the flock() call on the mail file itself. > > Locking schemes relying on other mechanisms are not effective. > > Sorry. Explain that to all of those people writing MUAs out there. Or try to go fix every one of them. If you want to change the semantics of how the mail spool works, you have to consider the effect it will have on all of these (admittedly poortly written) programs. -- Wes Peters | Yes I am a pirate, two hundred years too late Softweyr | The cannons don't thunder, there's nothing to plunder Consulting | I'm an over forty victim of fate... softweyr@xmission.com | Jimmy Buffett