In-Reply-To: <20150614193616.ga...@tweddell.de> <20150614045940.GA3721@localhost.localdomain>
On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 09:59:40PM -0700, Tom Fowle wrote: [reformatted for brevity] > I often save individual incomming emails in seperate files in my > home directory with the mutt "s" command. In any session, the first > time I save to a particular file it goes fine. However if I try to > save another message to the same file, I get "Permission denied." > > checking the permission of the file it is > -rw- --- --- As others have said, this should not present you with any problems. If it does happen again, you should really take a look at why--it's most likely you've done something else wrong. The more interesting point is this: On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 09:36:44PM +0200, bastian-muttu...@t6l.de wrote: > On 13Jun15 22:55 -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote: > I think it is worth to solve the trouble of file permissions. FMPOV this > behaviour is not typical to unix philosophy, because you cannot > influence file modes via the umask syscall. This is wrong. The file permissions are what they are quite specifically and intentionally for security reasons. If you want to make the files less secure, you are required to make a conscious decision on a case-by-case basis, and take action to do so, and that is as it should be. This issue has been discussed and debated ad nauseum in the past, and this is one of those cases where the developers should do (and have done) what is right without regard to what the users want, because what the users want is simply just plain wrong--but they've proven too difficult to be convinced of that. I'm not going to rehash the argument here; if you search the archives, you should find the discussion. Whether anyone likes it or not, the fact is that when it comes to software security, most users--and even a large portion of the developers--just don't have any idea what they are talking about, and to some extent people who know better need to make the decision for them to prevent the possibility of bad things happening on a wide-spread basis. This is one of those cases--the small inconvenience of having to manually change the permissions is VASTLY outweighed by the harm that could be done by allowing for the file permissions to be less restrictive by default. However, it would be good to document this somewhere, since it's come up more than once. -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
pgpQgJmhkDKLt.pgp
Description: PGP signature
