Gents,
Status update. I'm taking my laptop with me on holiday, and should have
a set of patches available beginning of august. :) Any new input on the
discussions of the past couple of weeks should be in my inbox in the
next 24 hours. :)
Tob
> From: Earl Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 14:59:12 -0500
>
> It seems that the only real place that locking is needed is
> for the .mh_sequences file. I.e. The use of locking can be
> limited to areas where there is no non-locking method available
> to prevent corruption.
On July 12, 2002 at 10:18, Neil W Rickert wrote:
> That should not be possible. I haven't looked at the code. But it
> should be opening the file with "O_CREAT", which should fail if the
> message already exists.
I think you mean "O_CREAT|O_EXCL".
>
> Unless there are major code deficiencies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> "Neil" == Neil W Rickert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Neil> Michael Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Aside from trashing sequences (which I've experienced on occasion, no idea
>> why)
>> I've run into situations where I wind up do
Michael Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Aside from trashing sequences (which I've experienced on occasion, no idea
>why)
> I've run into situations where I wind up doing an "inc" from two difference
>sources into the same folder. Usually due to impatience on my part.
As far as I know
>
> I think anytime that there is a possibility of multiple processes
> writing to the same file, locking should be "enableable". Even if
> it's a command line switch (everyone likes to say "use procmail", but
> this is essentially what procmail does: locks file and folders by
> default,
Not
