Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; from [EMAIL PROTECTED] on
Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 05:06:33PM -0400
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 05:06:33PM -0400, Scott McDermott wrote:
> Christopher Crowley on Tue 9/04 14:49 -0500:
> > The locking mechanisms are not the same, and thereby there is no
> > coordinated locking system between qpopper and uw-imap.
>
> If you use uw-imap with the mlock program from the UW imap-utils,
> building the IMAP server with LOCKPGM defined to it, it uses a hitchpost
> dotlock in the mail spool, just make it setgid mail along with mail
> writable spool dir. I think that should work, no? It appears that
> qpopper does use dotlocks in Qmaillock() at common/maillock.c:205.
This part actually works, yes. Both lock against mail delivery
successfully at this point. It's only the server mode that's a
problem, where qpopper assumes nothing happened to the spool between
start of session and end of session except appending to it.
> also if you run server mode, all bets are off since the lock only occurs
> once at the beginning and then at the end of the dropcopy, so you have
> to turn that off.
This is the part everyone's concerned about.
> I still think the lock should surround the session
> and let MDA handle temporary errors, but maybe that is bad policy, I
> don't know.
One problem with that solution is that lock is by convention considered
dead and removable by the MDA after 6 minutes, and a POP session can go
longer.
-- Clifton
--
Clifton Royston -- LavaNet Systems Architect -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"What do we need to make our world come alive?
What does it take to make us sing?
While we're waiting for the next one to arrive..." - Sisters of Mercy
