Re: File locking (was: Mutt 1.1.9 about 3-4x slower than mutt 1.0)
Vincent Lefevre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is safer for incoming mailboxes. But for archive boxes, that are accessed from only one machine, it is useless. So, could the locking mechanism be chosen from the .muttrc? If the mailbox is only accessed from one machine, why is it on an NFS server? Just put the mailbox on the one machine that is going to access it. No more NFS slow-down. -- David DeSimone | "The doctrine of human equality reposes on this: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | that there is no man really clever who has not Hewlett-Packard | found that he is stupid." -- Gilbert K. Chesterson UX WTEC Engineer |PGP: 5B 47 34 9F 3B 9A B0 0D AB A6 15 F1 BB BE 8C 44
Re: File locking (was: Mutt 1.1.9 about 3-4x slower than mutt 1.0)
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 18:23:11 -0600, David DeSimone wrote: If the mailbox is only accessed from one machine, why is it on an NFS server? Because my home is on an NFS server. This is the main reason. But in fact, I want to be able to access these mailboxes from other machines too, for instance because my machine is down. However it will always be only one machine at the same time. -- Vincent Lefèvre [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Web: http://www.vinc17.org/ - 100% validated HTML - Acorn Risc PC, Yellow Pig 17, Championnat International des Jeux Mathématiques et Logiques, TETRHEX, etc. Computer science / computer arithmetic / Arénaire project at LIP, ENS-Lyon
