From owner-freebsd-current Wed Oct 30 00:58:07 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id AAA18453 for current-outgoing; Wed, 30 Oct 1996 00:58:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from quagmire.ki.net (root@quagmire.ki.net [205.150.102.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA18439 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 1996 00:58:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from spirit.ki.net (root@spirit.ki.net [205.150.102.51]) by quagmire.ki.net (8.8.2/8.7.5) with ESMTP id DAA22670; Wed, 30 Oct 1996 03:57:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (scrappy@localhost) by spirit.ki.net (8.8.2/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA27052; Wed, 30 Oct 1996 03:57:53 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: spirit.ki.net: scrappy owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 03:57:45 -0500 (EST) From: "Marc G. Fournier" To: Ollivier Robert cc: current@freebsd.org, Mark Crispin Subject: Re: /var/mail (was: re: Help, permission problems...) In-Reply-To: <199610290635.HAA05491@keltia.freenix.fr> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Can anyone verify what the other *BSD variants do? BSDi? NetBSD? OpenBSD? Mark argued that FreeBSD is technically "unsupported" ... but that BSDi/NetBSD were ... if that's the case, then are they setting their /var/mail to 1777? Or do their admins go through the same procedures as I just did to get IMAP4 to quiet down? If they *do* set theirs to 1777...the DoS risk that Olliver mentioned, is it not a risk to them? And, if not, why is there mail subsystem better...? Marc G. Fournier scrappy@ki.net Systems Administrator @ ki.net scrappy@freebsd.org