From owner-freebsd-current Thu Oct 31 11:14:42 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id LAA28904 for current-outgoing; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 11:14:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.crl.com (mail.crl.com [165.113.1.22]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA28892; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 11:14:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from brasil.moneng.mei.com by mail.crl.com with SMTP id AA04570 (5.65c/IDA-1.5); Thu, 31 Oct 1996 12:15:39 -0700 Received: (from jgreco@localhost) by brasil.moneng.mei.com (8.7.Beta.1/8.7.Beta.1) id MAA28351; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 12:59:33 -0600 From: Joe Greco Message-Id: <199610311859.MAA28351@brasil.moneng.mei.com> Subject: Re: /var/mail (was: re: Help, permission problems...) To: terry@lambert.org (Terry Lambert) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 12:59:32 -0600 (CST) Cc: MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU, gpalmer@FreeBSD.org, jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com, terry@lambert.org, j@uriah.heep.sax.de, roberto@keltia.freenix.fr, current@FreeBSD.org, scrappy@ki.net In-Reply-To: <199610311829.LAA25654@phaeton.artisoft.com> from "Terry Lambert" at Oct 31, 96 11:29:55 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > > To be perfectly honest, I don't see the problem here ... make the > > > locking method an option, just like elm does. No more problem. > > > > What about my users who thank me for *NOT* doing this, because they find Elm's > > options too confusing? Well, Crispin can add several of us to the list of users who thank him for being a total jerk BECAUSE he does not do this. Elm suffers because it doesn't (or at least didn't, since I have not looked recently) attempt to do any tests to try to figure out reasonable defaults. > I can't believe elm is still that popular (even though it's *my* personal > favorite). I have to say this has got to be a reductio ad absurdum > argument -- a straw man. It's possible to test the failure case during > config by compiling up a small test program. Crispin's argument is very mildly valid: if you have a system built to not do .lock style locking, and then through some magic changes you decide to NFS mount off a Sun server, you are then at risk. That is true. Crispin has danced around the issue of "what happens to all the other local mail agents that also break"... i.e. the admin will have LOTS more problems to worry about than just IMAP4. Crispin has totally ignored the possibility of stat("/var/mail") as a very accurate method of determining the information he needs to know at run time, effectively addressing his concern. And Crispin - in typical bull headed style - has argued that he must do this in order to avoid complaints from users. He appears to have forgotten that bogus warnings and errors scare new users and generated the complaint that started this thread. Well I think we should all complain when we see this cryptic mail box locking message come up. (It might even not be too hard to automate it so that Crispin receives an automated complaint every time this error message pops up. Not that I would ever do THAT!) ... Joe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Greco - Systems Administrator jgreco@ns.sol.net Solaria Public Access UNIX - Milwaukee, WI 414/546-7968