Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 19:06:52 -0500 (EST) From: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@ki.net> To: Mark Crispin <MRC@Panda.COM> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, chat@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: /var/mail (was: re: Help, permission problems...) Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.95.961031185024.12546A-100000@quagmire.ki.net> In-Reply-To: <MailManager.846792971.5917.mrc@Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 31 Oct 1996, Mark Crispin wrote: > > This seems like a *heck* of alot of work simply because I want to use > > IMAP, which is the only piece of software that doesn't work with the > > current setup on my systems. > > That is bullshit. The software works. The only question is whether or not to > quell a warning message. > No, actually, the question is whether that warning condition should exist in the first place. Any *knowledgeable* systems administrator knows better then to use NFS for s mail spool, and the reasons why. If they do end up using it (which I believe Terry mentions he does?), they also know what steps to take to reduce (not eliminate, only reduce) the chances of a problem arising... Your software is broken in that it *does not* discourage the use of NFS mail spools. As a systems *programmer*, I can understand why you do this, because it reduces the number of bug reports you receive...as a systems *administrator*, I feel your software is broken by *not* discouraging the use of NFS mounted spools. > > It's less work to fix the IMAP sources, > > which I'll do and apparently you're not interested in integrating. > > I doubt that you use the software. > Daily for the past, oh, 3 years when I first heard of pine/imap, because it allowed me to finally get away from NFS mounted mail spools in an ISP setting... > And no, I am not going to screw 99% of the market for you. > I honestly thing you are deluding yourself with this figure... > Now, let's consider what Linux and some SVR4 systems do: > Y' ::= mail spool protected 775, group mail, mail readers run setgid. > In order for Y' to fix Z, you must define "not require privileges on mail > reading programs" out of Z. > Ah, so now that it seems to be determined that SVR4 and Linux both set their mail spools to 775, and we know that IMAP is broken unless the mail spool is set to 1777, *and* you've stated that the world has basically adopted Linux...doesn't that heavily change your '99%' figure? > Delivery to home directories is what the real hackers do. Spool directories > are stone knives and bearskins. > To you...but I've checked with a friend at UUnet about what they do, and it seems they use either POP or 'login to central mail server'...but UUnet probably doesn't count as big as 'UofWashington', so doesn't count... > > No, as Marc has already been pointed out FreeBSD is in-line with *many* > > other unix products, including some commercial versions. > > SVR4 does not use system call locking. That is the overwhelming bulk of the > market. OSF/1 does not use system call locking. Linux does not use system > call locking. Two dozen BSD variants which I have surveyed do not use system > call locking. > What is considered 'system call locking'? fcntl *and* flock, or one of them? or...? Both Linux *and* Solaris 2.5.1 support both, if that is the case... > I don't propose 775. I gave 775 as the example of what SVR4 and Linux do. > right, so now SVR4, Linux *and* FreeBSD break IMAP...I will make the assumption that both NetBSD and OpenBSD are similar, but I've never used either, so can't say for certain.. > I also work with the guys who develop it today at SUN. > Well...unless you can bring them into the discussion, I would pretty much state that who you know is irrelevant, since there is no way of proving it... Marc G. Fournier scrappy@ki.net Systems Administrator @ ki.net scrappy@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.95.961031185024.12546A-100000>