From owner-freebsd-questions Fri Oct 22 2:56:29 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from axl.noc.iafrica.com (axl.noc.iafrica.com [196.31.1.175]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E32614FBA for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 02:56:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sheldonh@axl.noc.iafrica.com) Received: from sheldonh (helo=axl.noc.iafrica.com) by axl.noc.iafrica.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.040 #1) id 11ebQh-000GLq-00; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 11:56:11 +0200 From: Sheldon Hearn To: "Jay West" Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is the "mail -u" option broken under 3.3 Release? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 21 Oct 1999 07:24:06 EST." <001f01bf1bbf$2b328d60$d402a8c0@tse.com> Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 11:56:11 +0200 Message-ID: <62857.940586171@axl.noc.iafrica.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, 21 Oct 1999 07:24:06 EST, "Jay West" wrote: > So, two questions... In the first case above, like I said it's a > fresh install with no symlinks. I must assume the mail -u command is > broken. Correct? And second, in the second case where /var/mail is a > symlink, is this a known bad thing to do? I really don't want to have > to reinstall this machine to make /var bigger.... ideas? It's odd, because the manpage says that ``-u foo'' is the same as ``-f /var/mail/foo''. Looking at the code, this is _not_ true. The -u option really sets the user whom we pretend to be. My advice would be to use the -f option, since I don't really know what -u is for. :-) Later, Sheldon. PS: Nope, there shouldn't be a problem using symlinks. But since we were working on the assumption that mail(1) might be broken, I was trying to narrow down our options. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message