On 10/18/2008 09:18 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
