On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, David T-G wrote:
> "overly restirctive" eh?
new reason to switch to mutt - pine is a security risk :^)
>
>
> % permissions on the spool directory for running Pine are 1777, i.e.
> % read-write-execute permission for everyone, with the sticky-bit set, so only
> % owners of a file can delete them.
>
> So the "problem" is that PINE doesn't have a nifty utility to do
> privileged file locking, and nobody would want to install a big program
> like that with privileges to do it. Well, PINE Is Not Elm, so it can't
> possibly be mutt :-)
>
who wants it to be mutt?
-s (ssh'd in via a slow dialup - only pine on this box $@%#$^)
