Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 15:34:04 -0700 From: Paul Traina <pst@shockwave.com> To: Nate Williams <nate@sri.MT.net> Cc: Barnacle Wes <softweyr@xmission.com>, security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD's /var/mail permissions Message-ID: <199606072234.PAA00814@precipice.shockwave.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 07 Jun 1996 15:07:19 MDT." <199606072107.PAA00612@rocky.sri.MT.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Their locking systems are irrelevant if they do not cooperate with mail.local. From: Nate Williams <nate@sri.MT.net> Subject: Re: FreeBSD's /var/mail permissions > Mail locking, to be effective, must be soley performed through the use of > the flock() call on the mail file itself. > > Locking schemes relying on other mechanisms are not effective. Locking schemes relying on flock() are not effective either, so that's why most MUA's I know of use lock files. You'll have to convince *them* that flock() is adequate, although I've yet to be convinced as well. 'flock()' is broken on too many systems to be considered reliable. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606072234.PAA00814>