On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 09:05:05AM +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote: > On 29Apr2013 20:00, Matthias Apitz <[email protected]> wrote: > | I think, mutt should not overwrite an existing file of mbox format while > | the user wants (as an error) to save an attachment to a file; there is a > | warning question about append/overwrite/cancel, but mutt could detect on > | overwrite that the target is a mbox and should deny it or raise an > | additional last warning. > > I don't think mbox files are special. Mutt already warns, and other files may > well have equally valuable data in them. > > I'm -1 on this idea. > > On the other hand, I'd be +1 on a loud warning if the save path is > inside the mail folder area.
And only if the file to be saved already exists. For example I could have a dir, /home/willf/mail/attachments, where I normally save attachments and I would not want mutt warning when I save an attachment in there when nothing is being overwritten. In general, mutt's current warning behavior seems like enough and in line with other Unix utilities like rm which when used with -i will ask if one really wants to remove an existing file but will not prevent the user, running as root, to remove system files/dirs that when gone will cripple the system. BTW, as a safety precaution I always start mutt, via a shell script wrapper, with the current PWD set to /home/willf/mail/attachments. I then save all attachments in that dir and move them out of there if I need to. -- Will Fiveash
