Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pdn!tscs!tct!chip
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm
Subject: Re: Will ELM ever use lockf()?
Message-ID: <27FA24B0.5244@tct.com>
Date: 3 Apr 91 18:53:36 GMT
References: <1991Mar25.193741.12360@coplex.uucp> <27F120EF.63A3@tct.uucp> <1991Mar30.213039.28713@coplex.uucp>
Organization: Teltronics/TCT, Sarasota, FL
Lines: 18

According to dean@coplex.uucp (Dean Brooks):
>chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>>Check the Smail source code -- specifically, sysdep.c.  Smail does use
>>".lock" files, just like Elm.
>
>Yeah, but ".lock" files dont hack hack it for 20 messages all trying
>to arrive in your mailbox at the same time.

Correspondence with Dean reveals that Smail seems to work okay, and
that it's Elm that's dropping the ball.

Of course, there is no such thing as reliable elimination of a stale
lock file under UNIX: how do you know that you're removing the stale
one?  So lockf() is really the best solution.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg                    <chip@tct.com>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip>
  Brand X Industries Custodial, Refurbishing and Containment Service
            When You Never, Ever Want To See It Again [tm]