From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Oct 31 16:37:58 1996 Return-Path: owner-chat Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id QAA19555 for chat-outgoing; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 16:37:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhost1.cac.washington.edu (mailhost1.cac.washington.edu [140.142.32.2]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA19550 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 16:37:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM (UW-Gateway.Panda.COM [192.107.14.65]) by mailhost1.cac.washington.edu (8.8.2+UW96.10/8.8.2+UW96.10) with SMTP id QAA15869; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 16:37:46 -0800 Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 16:27:58 -0800 (PST) From: Mark Crispin Subject: Re: /var/mail (was: re: Help, permission problems...) To: "Marc G. Fournier" cc: Nate Williams , chat@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-chat@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, 31 Oct 1996 19:06:52 -0500 (EST), Marc G. Fournier wrote: > Your software is broken in that it *does not* discourage the use > of NFS mail spools. As a systems *programmer*, I can understand why you > do this, because it reduces the number of bug reports you receive...as > a systems *administrator*, I feel your software is broken by *not* > discouraging the use of NFS mounted spools. The market does not share your openion. > > And no, I am not going to screw 99% of the market for you. > I honestly thing you are deluding yourself with this figure... What evidence do you have that FreeBSD represents as much as 1% of the UNIX market? I believe that it is much smaller. > Ah, so now that it seems to be determined that SVR4 and Linux both > set their mail spools to 775, and we know that IMAP is broken unless the > mail spool is set to 1777, *and* you've stated that the world has basically > adopted Linux...doesn't that heavily change your '99%' figure? No. The 99% figure has to do with using .lock files and permitting NFS access. Linux has a different problem. They want all mail readers to run with privileges. > What is considered 'system call locking'? fcntl *and* flock, or one > of them? or...? Either fcntl or flock. > Both Linux *and* Solaris 2.5.1 support both, if that is > the case... The operating system support isn't the issue. It's what the delivery agents use. The delivery agents on Linux and Solaris use .lock files, not system call locking. > right, so now SVR4, Linux *and* FreeBSD break IMAP Actually, no. Some of the SVR4 and Linux guys run it with SGID mail, although I discourage them from doing that.