From owner-freebsd-current  Wed May 14 11:17:24 1997
Return-Path: <owner-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA25168
          for current-outgoing; Wed, 14 May 1997 11:17:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from labs.usn.blaze.net.au (labs.usn.blaze.net.au [203.17.53.30])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA25161
          for <current@freeBSD.org>; Wed, 14 May 1997 11:17:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from labs.usn.blaze.net.au (local [127.0.0.1])
	by labs.usn.blaze.net.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA01334;
	Thu, 15 May 1997 04:17:13 +1000 (EST)
Message-Id: <199705141817.EAA01334@labs.usn.blaze.net.au>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0gamma 1/27/96
To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Cc: current@freeBSD.org
Subject: Re: RELENG_2_2 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 13 May 1997 01:01:26 MST."
             <7493.863510486@time.cdrom.com> 
X-Face: (W@z~5kg?"+5?!2kHP)+l369.~a@oTl^8l87|/s8"EH?Uk~P<Wc^}f75I|456ez/M
 E3OlD+ZL@c>#N+Ec~Z&@;'LL!;3?y<m[SK`'\R~Oe|(t-x+U@a%p!1_fZP0!Tb^?'%M1|"n9
 Fl{Ao~%X[Ec|bMlaN-3#x.e')nZ2/HHYSa2D[:bk#pj0(}\HpKeE}/GqUb3-1}lnUm6Et4?(
 gB5[*Z3Mu6o{Og.EJ))beY9oq9wcVU7_n}:I2JvCaa[5=&PI;x__["DL`uI}=s>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 04:17:12 +1000
From: David Nugent <davidn@labs.usn.blaze.net.au>
Sender: owner-current@freeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>  in this release and Thomas Roell cannot fix this "correctly" in the
>  time-span available to him, so the only option is for me to create a
>  variant of 2.2.x which has this change in it.  Now, I ask you frankly,
>  which option do you think will create the least confusion?

I've only got one query.

What happens when a user loses mail or has his/her mailbox
trashed when there is a locking collision/race caused by
dtmail and the local delivery agent using different locking
methods?

This is the real problem. Like many, I've been bitten by this
when simply accessing a mailbox via nfs. It won't happen often,
but it surely will.

If dtmail is to be catered for, then we also need to resolve/fix
our own source tree to handle whatever dtmail expects. If it is
already compatible (and by the sound of it, it isn't), then I
didn't post this. :-)

Regards,
David