Monday, August 29, 2011, 4:32:55 AM, Joseph wrote: > On Mon, 29 Aug 2011, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>>> Actually, this gives me pause that maybe I should not enirely remove >>> the dotlocking method >>> >>> >>> http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/pipermail/alpine-info/2008-July/000996.html >>> >>> Any comments on the (sole) use of POSIX fcntl() type locking? >> >> As long as you haven't used symlinks in your mboxes there's no problems >> with fcntl locking with Dovecot (assuming there are no non-Dovecot >> software writing to them). > Thanks for the info. > I don't meet the last criteria: some users have direct file access via > pine and other mail readers. There's also procmail, but I don't know > what locking method it uses. Reading the pine sources closely, I think > it fakes fcntl() for NFS mailboxes. Pine/Alpine knows IMAP. That's what I use locally on my server. > I'm using dotlock_try which solves my immediate problem of allowing > users to delete Email under full quota. > The long term solution is to replace file access with kerberized IMAP > access, but that's much further down the road. > Joseph Tam <jtam.h...@gmail.com> -- Best regards, Duane mailto:du...@duanemail.org
