Re: [mutt-1.2] Broken world-writable /var/mail detection!

On Wed, May 10, 2000 at 20:47:39 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote: > If all you want to do is changing folder formats, mutt > itself will be a nice tool. No, not if it is configured to use dotlocking only. -- Vincent Lefèvre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Web: - 100% validated HTML

Re: [mutt-1.2] Broken world-writable /var/mail detection!

On 2000-05-10 19:10:38 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > when i switched from mailbox to maildir i used the > formail-prgram, which is a versatile little > mail-message formatter from the procmail suite: If all you want to do is changing folder formats, mutt itself will be a nice tool. -- http

Re: [mutt-1.2] Broken world-writable /var/mail detection!

> Thomas Roessler (Wed 10.0500-12:37): > > My personal suggestion would be to use maildir folders - a > simple delivery agent by Dave de Simmone (I think) is in > the contrib/ area of the FTP site. It should even be > possible to write one in your favorite shell scripting > language, or even in

Re: [mutt-1.2] Broken world-writable /var/mail detection!

On Wed, May 10, 2000 at 04:14:11PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > Why broken? Do you mean that NFS is broken? *grin* That's a different story. What I meant is the fact that the use of differnet locking methods depending on where a file resides brings additional complexity to a system, and esse

Re: [mutt-1.2] Broken world-writable /var/mail detection!

On Wed, May 10, 2000 at 04:14:11PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > My personal suggestion would be to use maildir folders > > This is what I'll do for incoming mailboxes. Russell Hoover told me > that according to procmail.org, procmail now supports the maildir > mailbox format. > Yes, it does

Re: [mutt-1.2] Broken world-writable /var/mail detection!

On Wed, May 10, 2000 at 12:37:45 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote: > Not currently. (Actually, systems which require the use > of different locking mechanisms for different kinds of > mail folders sound a bit broken to me.) Why broken? Do you mean that NFS is broken? It seems logical to use a faste

Re: [mutt-1.2] Broken world-writable /var/mail detection!

On 2000-05-10 12:05:03 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > Well, can I use a locking mechanism with incoming > mailboxes (fcntl) and another locking mechanism > (dotlock) with other mailboxes? Not currently. (Actually, systems which require the use of different locking mechanisms for different kind

Re: [mutt-1.2] Broken world-writable /var/mail detection!

On Wed, May 10, 2000 at 11:32:43 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote: > Maybe certain caching mechanisms are disabled where you > use mutt. However, we have had reports about substantial > mail loss which were related to locking problems and NFS > caching. You really want to invalidate caches, which >

Re: [mutt-1.2] Broken world-writable /var/mail detection!

On 2000-05-10 10:59:10 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > I thought it was reliable. I've been using the dotlock > method (only) for years and AFAIK, I've never had any > mailbox corruption when it was enabled. Maybe certain caching mechanisms are disabled where you use mutt. However, we have had

Re: [mutt-1.2] Broken world-writable /var/mail detection!

On Wed, May 10, 2000 at 09:49:03 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote: > Of course, this gain of speed comes at the cost of > minimized reliability. You don't want to do dotlocking > via NFS. I thought it was reliable. I've been using the dotlock method (only) for years and AFAIK, I've never had any mai

Re: [mutt-1.2] Broken world-writable /var/mail detection!

On 2000-05-10 09:30:08 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > I prefer dotlock, because it is faster than fcntl under NFS. Of course, this gain of speed comes at the cost of minimized reliability. You don't want to do dotlocking via NFS. -- http://www.guug.de/~roessler/

Re: [mutt-1.2] Broken world-writable /var/mail detection!

On Tue, May 09, 2000 at 20:55:43 +0100, Lars Hecking wrote: > So why didn't you report it with all the details necessary to fix it? I did, but noone replied. See messages <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Before, I thought that there was a problem with the mail server

Re: [mutt-1.2] Broken world-writable /var/mail detection!

On Tue, May 09, 2000 at 21:45:38 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote: > Did you run configure as root? No (and I don't have a root access). -- Vincent Lefèvre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Web: - 100% validated HTML - Acorn Risc PC, Yellow Pig 17, Championnat International des Jeux Ma

Re: [mutt-1.2] Broken world-writable /var/mail detection!

Vincent Lefevre writes: > The first time I configured mutt 1.2, it said that /var/mail wasn't > world-writable. I had to configure it a second time (after cleaning)! > This problem has already happened with mutt 1.1.x. So why didn't you report it with all the details necessary to fix it? > And

[mutt-1.2] Broken world-writable /var/mail detection!

The first time I configured mutt 1.2, it said that /var/mail wasn't world-writable. I had to configure it a second time (after cleaning)! This problem has already happened with mutt 1.1.x. $ uname -a SunOS vin 5.7 Generic_106541-09 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-5_10 and I'm under NFS. BTW, this proble