Xref: utzoo comp.mail.elm:3978 comp.mail.misc:5168
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!daver!tscs!tct!chip
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm,comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: Will ELM ever use lockf()?
Message-ID: <2800BA22.1CAE@tct.com>
Date: 8 Apr 91 18:44:48 GMT
References: <1991Mar30.213039.28713@coplex.uucp> <27FA24B0.5244@tct.com> <UHPPYLW@geminix.in-berlin.de>
Followup-To: comp.mail.misc
Organization: Teltronics/TCT, Sarasota, FL
Lines: 16

According to gemini@geminix.in-berlin.de (Uwe Doering):
>Following this patch, there is another one that shows how to convince
>Smail 3.1.20 to use lock files instead of lockf() unter SysVr3. Maybe
>this works for earlier Smail releases, too.

The patches posted by Uwe for Elm are much appreciated.

His patches for Smail, however, are *far* more than is required.
Smail 3 already has a knob that controls mailbox locking specifically.
In conf/EDITME, and in conf/os/<your-os-here>, do *not* set
FLOCK_MAILBOX.  That's it.  (See the comments in conf/os/sys5* for
further description of of FLOCK_MAILBOX.)
-- 
Brand X Industries Custodial, Refurbishing and Containment Service:
         When You Never, Ever Want To See It Again [tm]
     Chip Salzenberg   <chip@tct.com>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip>