Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!news.cs.indiana.edu!ariel.unm.edu!sfreed
From: sfreed@ariel.unm.edu (Steven Freed CIRT)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm
Subject: Re: Will ELM ever use lockf()?
Message-ID: <1991Mar26.055600.27712@ariel.unm.edu>
Date: 26 Mar 91 05:56:00 GMT
References: <1991Mar25.193741.12360@coplex.uucp>
Reply-To: sfreed@ariel.unm.edu
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque NM
Lines: 27
Originator: sfreed@triton.unm.edu


In article <1991Mar25.193741.12360@coplex.uucp>, dean@coplex.uucp (Dean Brooks) writes:
->    Now, we do not have "flock()" on our system (and many other V3.2
-> systems).  Since smail doesn't recognize elm's locking, and vice
-> versa, I have a REAL nasty problem.
-> 
->    If elm were to support "lockf()" all my problems would be gone.  Are
-> there any hopes in the future of this being included in the elm source?

We have talked about this here at UNM but we have yet to take any serious
action on it. The reason we are interested in doing something is because of
the locking problems with NFS. Lockf() is the *only* way to guarantee
file locking with NFS. I can point out several scenarios where lock files
will fail. To make the change means that everything that writes any mailboxes
on the system including /bin/mail must use lockf().

Right now, mail is collected on each machine, but we would like to centralize
it to one partition on one machine. To do this either means hacking lockf()
into everything including elm or hack POP into elm. Both options are being
considered.

I would be interesed to hear any thoughts on this.


-- 

Steve.                    sfreed@ariel.unm.edu