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>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
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. Natehome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606072234.PAA00814>