On 2007-03-17 11:47:42 -0400, Derek Martin wrote: > Barring gross negligence in the extreme on the OS designer's part, > Mutt using a umask of 077 solves the problem, guaranteed, no matter > what the operating system does. And this protection is provided at > the low, low cost of the user occasionally having to run chmod when > they actually do want people to be able to read their files.
I agree, but if the chmod could be done from Mutt, it would be better. for instance, after the filename, a question could optionally be asked by Mutt whether the user's umask should be used or not. -- Vincent Lefèvre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.org/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arenaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
