Hello Will,
> I would think that a "sane" umask would be a conservative one that's not
> readable by others. This might be a *convenient* umask for some people,
> but probably not something that would make sense for adoption.
I agree the sane umask is what mutt is currently doing. It drove me
insane because I quite often end up doing a chmod go+r path/to/file for
the last ten years so when I rebased yesterday and had to recompile mutt
anyway, I wrote the small patch to fix my usecase.I know a lot of people
that switch workstations and systems quite often so when they want to
see an attachment they have two options:
- sshfs if they're in front of a Linux workstation
- a https webserver
Since I'm also forced to use Windows quite often sshfs is not always an
option for me.
> I would think an option to make it configurable would be more useful
> than just hard-coding it to be world readable, though.
Find an updated patch as a follow up to this e-mail.
Cheers,
Thomas
