From owner-freebsd-bugs Wed May 27 09:37:11 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA05052 for freebsd-bugs-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 09:37:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from gateman.zeus.leitch.com (gateman.zeus.leitch.com [204.187.61.193]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA04998; Wed, 27 May 1998 09:36:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from woods@tap.zeus.leitch.com) Received: from zeus.leitch.com (tap.zeus.leitch.com [204.187.61.10]) by gateman.zeus.leitch.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/1.0) with ESMTP id MAA00742; Wed, 27 May 1998 12:36:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from brain.zeus.leitch.com (brain.zeus.leitch.com [204.187.61.32]) by zeus.leitch.com (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.0) with ESMTP id MAA09427; Wed, 27 May 1998 12:36:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from woods@localhost) by brain.zeus.leitch.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA23193; Wed, 27 May 1998 12:36:32 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from woods@tap.zeus.leitch.com) Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 12:36:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199805271636.MAA23193@brain.zeus.leitch.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: woods@zeus.leitch.com (Greg A. Woods) To: "Daniel O'Callaghan" Cc: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Using /var/tmp instead of /tmp for mail.local In-Reply-To: Daniel O'Callaghan's message of "Mon, May 25, 1998 22:41:15 -0700" regarding "Using /var/tmp instead of /tmp for mail.local" id <199805260541.WAA07243@freefall.freebsd.org> References: <199805260541.WAA07243@freefall.freebsd.org> X-Mailer: VM 6.45 under Emacs 20.2.1 Reply-To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Organization: Planix, Inc.; Toronto, Ontario; Canada Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org [ On Mon, May 25, 1998 at 22:41:15 (-0700), Daniel O'Callaghan wrote: ] > Subject: Using /var/tmp instead of /tmp for mail.local > > Would anyone object to the following change to pathnames.h > in mail.local as proposed by Greg Lemis? > This would reduce the risk of overflowing the root fs by large > e-mails. Depending on how filesystems are organized, it's possible this patch would cause contention within the mail system (i.e. when /var/spool and /var/tmp are the same filesystem). Of course if the /var/tmp and /var/mail are the same filesystem the contention is just moved down a step. All bets are off if the message is being delivered to multiple mailboxes though, as /var/mail will be the most likely place you'll run out of space! ;-) Anyone worried about overflowing their root filesystem because they might receive a large e-mail really should learn more about filesystem allocation, and the potential subsystem interactions and contentions that can result. And how to restrict the size of mail messages that the mailer will accept.... ;-) /tmp should always be a separate filesystem (and /var/tmp should be a symlink to it, or itself a separate filesystem); or vice versa (i.e. /tmp is a symlink pointing to /var/tmp and /var, or /var/tmp, is a separate mount point). Note that if you do the latter then you need a /var/tmp directory on the root filesystem so that things won't completely break in single user mode when /var/tmp (or /var) isn't mounted. Given what's said in hier(7), I think /tmp is the logical place for mail.local to save the copy of the message. -- Greg A. Woods +1 416 443-1734 VE3TCP Planix, Inc. ; Secrets of the Weird To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message