On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 10:39:01AM -0400, Celejar wrote: > On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 10:15:10 +0200 > Ricardo Mones <[email protected]> wrote: > > ... > > > Hi, > > > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:33:58AM -0400, Celejar wrote: > > > Package: sylpheed > > > Version: 3.2.0-1 > > > Severity: grave > > > > > > Sylpheed uses flock(), when available, to lock mbox files on write, while > > > (recent) getmail (for example) defaults to lockf: > > > > > > http://pyropus.ca/software/getmail/configuration.html#destination-mboxrd > > > > > > While getmail, for example, documents this, makes the lock technique > > > configurable, and includes a big fat warning about the possibility of data > > > corruption consequent to file locking technique mismatch, AFAICT Sylpheed > > > does > > > not document its locking method and does not make it configurable, > > > creating a > > > serious possibility of mbox corruption and data loss. > > > > The problem I see is that documenting it doesn't prevent the data loss > > to happen. It only serves to wash hands and say "I told you", which is > > not very helping to somebody which may have just lost a hundred mails. > > Agreed - I just suggested documentation as a minimum.
Yep, understood. > > Do you know why getmail has change locking method? If there's good reasons > > maybe Sylpheed upstream can be convinced of changing this too. > > I don't know, but upstream of both projects are very responsive, so > I'll ask. Great, thanks a lot! best regards, -- Ricardo Mones ~ 00:45 < hammar> cool.. have you used rssyl? 00:46 <@Ticho> um, yes Seen on #sylpheed
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
