From owner-freebsd-current  Wed Oct 30 23:48:02 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id XAA06923
          for current-outgoing; Wed, 30 Oct 1996 23:48:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from verdi.nethelp.no (verdi.nethelp.no [193.91.212.2])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA06890
          for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 30 Oct 1996 23:47:58 -0800 (PST)
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
Received: (qmail 1342 invoked by uid 1001); 31 Oct 1996 07:47:54 +0000 (GMT)
To: gpalmer@FreeBSD.ORG
Cc: MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU, jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com, terry@lambert.org,
        j@uriah.heep.sax.de, roberto@keltia.freenix.fr, current@FreeBSD.ORG,
        scrappy@ki.net
Subject: Re: /var/mail (was: re: Help, permission problems...) 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 31 Oct 1996 01:53:46 -0500"
References: <2495.846744826@orion.webspan.net>
X-Mailer: Mew version 1.05+ on Emacs 19.28.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 08:47:54 +0100
Message-ID: <1340.846748074@verdi.nethelp.no>
Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> > Has it ever dawned on any of you that a user on a FreeBSD system just might b
> > e
> > getting the mail spool via NFS from a different flavor of UNIX, one that uses
> > the .lock files instead?  Probably not, but it's my job to think about such
> > things and make sure that they work, because golly gee, people do such things
> 
> No, probably because without NFS locking, it will have a tendancy to
> destroy mail. Ergo, it isn't done :-)

People do mail delivery via NFS all the time. They'll do so as long as
NFS exists. Please don't delude yourself into thinking that you will
stop them.

> NFS for e-mail is evil and people who do it should be shot.

I can agree with you, but again, the fact that we agree won't stop
people from using NFS for this purpose.

> POP and
> IMAP are perfectly reasonable ways of collecting e-mail (and yes, I do
> know what the subject of this discussion is/was). Some people who have
> a mad love for /usr/bin/mail want /var/mail NFS mounted from the mail
> box to the shell box. I tell them to use fetchmail. Problem solved.
> 
> To be perfectly honest, I don't see the problem here ... make the
> locking method an option, just like elm does. No more problem.

You don't understand what Mark is saying. The fact that you might be
able to determine the correct locking method *now*, when the mail
system is installed, is no guarantee for the future. In the future
some other system administrator could take over, details be forgotten,
the mail spool might be NFS mounted, etc. And suddenly people might
start losing mail, because only one locking method was used that no
longer worked reliably.

I think Mark is trying to do his best to avoid losing mail, in the
face of NFS and other problems. I certainly can't fault him for this,
even if I don't always agree with his conclusions.

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no