Re: Locking mboxes

2001-12-04 Thread Steve Kennedy
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 07:45:45PM -0500, David T-G wrote: % I would not design a production quality mail setup that relied on it % if that is what you are asking. Well, that's one way to answer it :-) I don't know enough to know whether there are right and wrong ways to implement NFS so

Re: Locking mboxes

2001-12-04 Thread David T-G
Steve, et al -- ...and then Steve Kennedy said... % On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 07:45:45PM -0500, David T-G wrote: % % % I would not design a production quality mail setup that relied on it % % if that is what you are asking. % Well, that's one way to answer it :-) I don't know enough to know %

Re: Locking mboxes

2001-12-04 Thread Aaron Goldblatt
So I recompiled: ./configure --with-flock --enable-nfs-fix Don't use flock for locking mail folders accessed via NFS. Fcntl was the right thing to do. I'd guess that some part of your NFS locking is screwed up. For the benefit of the archives, I resolved the issue by disabling both

Re: Locking mboxes

2001-12-03 Thread David T-G
Aaron -- ...and then Aaron Goldblatt said... % I'm having an oddball problem with locking. Mutt 1.3.24i on RedHat 7.2 % Linux 2.4.16. The mailboxes in question are mbox format on an NFS % server running Slackware 8.0 Linux 2.4.16. ... % There are no obvious conflicts in /var/lock/. Manually

Re: Locking mboxes

2001-12-03 Thread Aaron Goldblatt
mutt -v Okay. bash-2.05$ mutt -v Mutt 1.3.24i (2001-11-29) Copyright (C) 1996-2001 Michael R. Elkins and others. Mutt comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `mutt -vv'. Mutt is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions; type `mutt -vv' for

Re: Locking mboxes

2001-12-03 Thread David T-G
Aaron -- ...and then Aaron Goldblatt said... %mutt -v % % Okay. % % bash-2.05$ mutt -v % Mutt 1.3.24i (2001-11-29) ... % -HOMESPOOL +USE_SETGID +USE_DOTLOCK +DL_STANDALONE % +USE_FCNTL -USE_FLOCK ... So that tells us how you can lock. Good. % % % So I recompiled: ./configure

Re: Locking mboxes

2001-12-03 Thread Cliff Sarginson
File Locking + NFS = very bad news It is inherently unreliable. -- Regards Cliff

Re: Locking mboxes

2001-12-03 Thread David T-G
Cliff -- ...and then Cliff Sarginson said... % File Locking + NFS = very bad news Agreed. If he has to use an mbox, though, he may not have many choices (my drop-in-mbox+run-razor+move-to-maildir kludge being one of them). % % It is inherently unreliable. Always? % % -- % Regards %

Re: Locking mboxes

2001-12-03 Thread Cliff Sarginson
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 07:17:14PM -0500, David T-G wrote: Cliff -- ...and then Cliff Sarginson said... % File Locking + NFS = very bad news Agreed. If he has to use an mbox, though, he may not have many choices (my drop-in-mbox+run-razor+move-to-maildir kludge being one of them).

Re: Locking mboxes

2001-12-03 Thread David T-G
Cliff -- ...and then Cliff Sarginson said... % On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 07:17:14PM -0500, David T-G wrote: % % ...and then Cliff Sarginson said... % % File Locking + NFS = very bad news ... % % It is inherently unreliable. % % Always? % % I would not design a production quality mail