Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!dptg!rutgers!iuvax!purdue!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu From: jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (John G Dobnick) Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm Subject: Re: Save Tagged Mail _Fast_! Message-ID: <4057@csd4.csd.uwm.edu> Date: 31 Aug 89 00:47:21 GMT References: <441@ariel.unm.edu> Reply-To: jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu Distribution: na Lines: 28 From article <441@ariel.unm.edu>, by sfreed@tesla.unm.edu (Steve Freed): > > This is true, however, it does NOT have to use both file locking > systems; ie, flock and creating a lock file. It would be great, if in > the Configure if the system has flock, then be asked if they want to > use lock files in addition to. (I'm not sure why one would want to...) Actually, using *both* causes some problems, as some of our less experienced users have discovered. (And as I discovered, the hard way, myself. But I'm more experienced now. :-) ) Given a machine crash while exiting elm when elm is rewriting the system mailbox... or a possibly impatient user on a HEAVILY loaded system hitting ^C while elm is doing doing the rewrite ... a .lock file seems to remain to cause subsequent "confusion" to numerous parties with Elm's somewhat cryptic warning message. On systems with flock, the lockfiles are probably not necessary. I think the configuration procedure should allow the site manager/Elm installer to decide this question himself. -- John G Dobnick Computing Services Division @ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee INTERNET: jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu UUCP: !uwvax!uwmcsd1!jgd "Knowing how things work is the basis for appreciation, and is thus a source of civilized delight." -- William Safire