Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 01:05:30 -0500 (EST) From: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@ki.net> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: Garrett Wollman <wollman@lcs.mit.edu>, jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /var/mail (was: re: Help, permission problems...) Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.95.961031005817.15243F-100000@quagmire.ki.net> In-Reply-To: <199610310015.RAA24436@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, Terry Lambert wrote: > > <<On Wed, 30 Oct 1996 10:56:37 -0800 (PST), Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> said: > > > [flamage deleted] > > > > I suggest that people just drop this. Crispin is a well-known flamer > > and is not likely to be swayed by anyone else's idea of the Right > > Thing. > > He is also the principle author (apparently) of IMAP4, a highly > desirable piece of software for anyone with a 1995 or later mail > client. > Agreed...which is why I brought this whole discussion into here... From what Mark has said, about the only way I can think of for getting this *obvious* security bug fixed is to, either: a) get other OS system administrators to complain about the security hole opened up by 1777 b) talk to the guy that signs his paycheck, since he has already stated once something to the effect that if he were to change the code, those that pay his check would be breathing down his neck... 3 years ago, I stopped supporting Elm and supported IMAP/Pine *because* I no longer had to worry about the possibility of file corruption associated with dealing with NFS-mounted mail spools. IMHO...what having .lock locking capabilities in IMAP4 is doing is encouraging system administrators to use NFS mounted mail spools, instead of *teaching* system administrators to *not* setup their systems that way... Marc G. Fournier scrappy@ki.net Systems Administrator @ ki.net scrappy@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.95.961031005817.15243F-100000>