On 10/18/2008 09:18 PM, rader(_at_)hep(_dot_)wisc(_dot_)edu wrote:
I just did some googling on this. It seems that link() is really
required when dealing with mail spools because it's the only atomic
way to lock. So this whole "no-links configuration option" idea is
a bad idea, and I now realize that I'll never be able to safely inc
over sshfs.
Shoulda just used AFS in the first place: it's got encryption,
link(), speedy client side caching, and the usual CW against using
AFS for a mail spool (other systems' callbacks cause you to wait)
doesn't really apply for a single user mail server.
steve
In a case like this, could nmh still get new mail by using POP or some
other method that lets the mail server handle locking? Or, when a user
tries to run inc, nmh could:
- print a warning and have a -force option
- default to less-than-perfect locking
- ...?
I'm not an expert on mail delivery, so I don't know how many disasters
are likely if locking isn't atomic. But the lack of links has kept nmh
off of a number of filesystems (and OSes) for a long time. If there's a
"good enough" solution with clear warnings about the chance of a
problem, it would let users make their own decisions.
(I use nmh mostly for archiving, searching, and replying to stored
messages. The only time I run inc these days is when I'm fetching the
last week's worth of mail from my mail host's inbox, which I normally
access via IMAP.)
Jerry
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers