severity 43529 fixed
thanks
On Thu, 26 Aug 1999, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.0.1.1
> Severity: important
>
> Policy says the following about the locking of mail:
>
> All Debian MUAs and MTAs have to use the `maillock' and `mailunlock'
> functions prov
On Fri, Sep 10, 1999 at 11:46:05AM +0200, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> Bad idea. Why do you want to share a mail spool over NFS? Because
> there's another machine that wants to access the mail, or the mail
> is stored on another machine and you want to access it. That other
> machine might well
On Fri, Sep 10, 1999 at 01:32:33PM +0200, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
> There are some disadvantages with this proposal:
...
You're right: there are resource consumption costs. However, when
measured against lost or damaged mail issues, these are probably worth
incurring.
> > The bad side of this is
On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
> Can we get liblockfile's program an routines to reliably *fail* when
> it's locking an nfs file?
Yes. Kernel 2.2.* on the client machine caches the file contents and
so doesn't note when the file was changed on the server. Without
fcntl() locking (liblo
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can we get liblockfile's program an routines to reliably *fail* when
> it's locking an nfs file?
>
> If so, perhaps we can recommend Maildir/ for people who need to
> put mail on an nfs partition.
>
> The bad side of this is that it requires some very s
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Can we get liblockfile's program an routines to reliably *fail* when
>it's locking an nfs file?
Sure.
>If so, perhaps we can recommend Maildir/ for people who need to
>put mail on an nfs partition.
Bad idea. Why do you wan
Can we get liblockfile's program an routines to reliably *fail* when
it's locking an nfs file?
If so, perhaps we can recommend Maildir/ for people who need to
put mail on an nfs partition.
The bad side of this is that it requires some very specific documentation,
and it's an extra admin headache
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>On Thu, 26 Aug 1999, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
>
>> The solution for this problem is to use fcntl(), because Linux 2.2.*
>> flushes the cache of a file in the moment when it is locked using
>> fcntl().
>>
>> But only fcnt
Previously Joseph Carter wrote:
> sendmail does not support maildir, but it probably could if someone wrote
> the rule to do it, or it's possible that a code patch could be (or has
> been) written.
Sendmail rules have nothing to do with this, you need a delivery agent
that can do it. Procmail can,
On Aug 27, Seth R Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Please forgive someone new to debian -- the benefits of moving to Maildir
>format for NFS-based systems seems obvious, if it removes lock-contention
>problems. However, wouldn't that mean mutt would be the only mailreader
>supplied with Debi
On Aug 27, Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Don't you even... (I use that sort of system here on this machine, but it
>should NOT be the default!) Before you even consider that solution you
>need to address people who don't have a ~ to put a mailbox in (ie a mail
On debian every user
"Marco d'Itri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would support a policy amendment to move debian to ~/Maildir/.
I would oppose such a proposal. Debian does not exist in a vacuum; it
is frequently used in a heterogenous environment with other Unix/Linux
systems. The mail server may not even have *
On Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 12:51:50PM -0700, Seth R Arnold wrote:
> > > >So perhaps we should mandate that all mail programs should be capable
> > > >of using Maildir format, which is NFS safe without needing locks, and
> > > >adopt that as our default.
> > > I would support a policy amendment to m
On Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 02:51:21PM -0400, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 12:50:32PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > On Aug 27, Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >So perhaps we should mandate that all mail programs should be capable
> > >of using Maildir format, which
On Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 12:50:32PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> >So perhaps we should mandate that all mail programs should be capable
> >of using Maildir format, which is NFS safe without needing locks, and
> >adopt that as our default.
> I would support a policy amendment to move debian to ~/
On Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 12:50:32PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Aug 27, Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >mbox format mail is not safe over NFS even if there is locking.
> Is not safe if there is a crash, but otherwise it works.
>
> >So perhaps we should mandate that all mail pro
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Aug 27, Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >mbox format mail is not safe over NFS even if there is locking.
>Is not safe if there is a crash, but otherwise it works.
>
> >So perhaps we should mandate that all mail
On Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 12:50:32PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Aug 27, Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >So perhaps we should mandate that all mail programs should be capable
> >of using Maildir format, which is NFS safe without needing locks, and
> >adopt that as our default.
> I w
On Aug 27, Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>mbox format mail is not safe over NFS even if there is locking.
Is not safe if there is a crash, but otherwise it works.
>So perhaps we should mandate that all mail programs should be capable
>of using Maildir format, which is NFS safe witho
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>On Thu, 26 Aug 1999, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
>
>> The solution for this problem is to use fcntl(), because Linux 2.2.*
>> flushes the cache of a file in the moment when it is locked using
>> fcntl().
>>
>> But only fcnt
"Marco d'Itri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Aug 26, Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> But only fcntl() locking is not enough, because Linux 2.0.* doesn't
> >> support this over NFS and then we have no locking over NFS.
> >
> >And linux 2.2.x with a userland server also do
On Aug 26, Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But only fcntl() locking is not enough, because Linux 2.0.* doesn't
>> support this over NFS and then we have no locking over NFS.
>
>And linux 2.2.x with a userland server also does not support fcntl
>locking, it generates an annoying
On Thu, 26 Aug 1999, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > The solution for this problem is to use fcntl(), because Linux
> > 2.2.* flushes the cache of a file in the moment when it is locked
> > using fcntl().
> > But only fcntl() locking is not enough, because Linux 2.0.*
> > doesn't support this over NFS
On Thu, 26 Aug 1999, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
> The solution for this problem is to use fcntl(), because Linux 2.2.*
> flushes the cache of a file in the moment when it is locked using
> fcntl().
>
> But only fcntl() locking is not enough, because Linux 2.0.* doesn't
> support this over NFS and t
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.0.1.1
Severity: important
Policy says the following about the locking of mail:
All Debian MUAs and MTAs have to use the `maillock' and `mailunlock'
functions provided by the `liblockfile' packages to lock and unlock
mail boxes. These functions impl
25 matches
Mail list logo
