From owner-freebsd-current Thu Apr 11 15:20:28 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id PAA17701 for current-outgoing; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 15:20:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA17695 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 15:20:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id PAA05168; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 15:18:27 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199604112218.PAA05168@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: /var/mail default permissions?? To: wollman@lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 15:18:27 -0700 (MST) Cc: terry@lambert.org, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <9604112045.AA16355@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> from "Garrett Wollman" at Apr 11, 96 04:45:55 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > If it weren't for NFS mounts, I'd suggest devising a common mail > > API and making all mail programs use it. > > And I would suggest that we already have one, and it consists of the > following routines: > > open(2), > flock(2), > link(2), > unlink(2), > read(2), > write(2), > lseek(2), > and close(2) How does this API enforce RFC compliant message formats better than or equvalent to enforcement by any potential replacement API? By recoding (probably erroneously) the requirements in each and every application that deals with mail, you say? In code whose intent is to performs identical function but which is yet unshared between these applications, needlessly duplicating massive amounts of programming effort? Seems silly to me... Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.