Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 11:56:11 +0200 From: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za> To: "Jay West" <jlwest@tseinc.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is the "mail -u" option broken under 3.3 Release? Message-ID: <62857.940586171@axl.noc.iafrica.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 21 Oct 1999 07:24:06 EST." <001f01bf1bbf$2b328d60$d402a8c0@tse.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 21 Oct 1999 07:24:06 EST, "Jay West" wrote:
> So, two questions... In the first case above, like I said it's a
> fresh install with no symlinks. I must assume the mail -u command is
> broken. Correct? And second, in the second case where /var/mail is a
> symlink, is this a known bad thing to do? I really don't want to have
> to reinstall this machine to make /var bigger.... ideas?
It's odd, because the manpage says that ``-u foo'' is the same as
``-f /var/mail/foo''. Looking at the code, this is _not_ true. The -u
option really sets the user whom we pretend to be.
My advice would be to use the -f option, since I don't really know what
-u is for. :-)
Later,
Sheldon.
PS: Nope, there shouldn't be a problem using symlinks. But since we were
working on the assumption that mail(1) might be broken, I was trying
to narrow down our options.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?62857.940586171>