Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!mcvax!kth!sunic!ericom!erix.ericsson.se!per
From: per@erix.ericsson.se (Per Hedeland)
Newsgroups: news.software.nntp
Subject: Re: Filesystem full patches?
Message-ID: <1961@erix.ericsson.se>
Date: 4 Apr 89 08:18:29 GMT
References: <11896@shamash.cdc.com> <8159@xanth.cs.odu.edu>
Reply-To: per@erix.ericsson.se (Per Hedeland)
Organization: Ellemtel Utvecklings AB, Stockholm, Sweden
Lines: 33

In article <8159@xanth.cs.odu.edu> tadguy@cs.odu.edu (Tad Guy) writes:
>You don't specify what system you're running NNTP on, but if it's 4BSD
>the enclosed diffs and source might help.

I installed Tad's code (with some cosmetic changes: merged dfree() into
space(), made the whole thing #ifndef USG rather than #ifdef ODU, and made both
versions of space() return 0 if MINFREE wasn't #defined) - it works fine (still
on a VAX/4.3BSD), and has had numerous opportunities to prove this during the
last week... May I suggest that this be included in a future "official" patch?

However, I don't quite follow the logic of when this check is made by nntpd (as
per patch #3, not Tad's code), i.e. iff !canpost - wouldn't the opposite be
more appropriate:-)? Seriously, I understand that there is little point in
giving your NNTP feed(s) posting priviliges, but requiring that it doesn't have
them, on the other hand, seems like an unnecessary hassle (we generate the
access file more or less automatically from name server data).  More
importantly perhaps, if you have clients with reading but not posting
priviliges, these suddenly can't even read just because the spool directory is
getting full!

Wouldn't a more reasonable method be to have the out_of_space condition set
canpost to 0, and require posting priviliges for IHAVE? Or, if this breaks
existing setups (probably) or violates the definitions of the permissions,
just have the IHAVE command (and maybe POST) check out_of_space directly?

BTW, patch #3 says MINFREE should be defined in news/defs.h, and indeed, for
those bold enough to install patches #15-17 for 2.11 (which were sent out some
4 months *after* nntp patch #3), there is a reason for having it there, but I
still don't see how such a definition would find it's way into nntpd?

Regards
--Per Hedeland
per@erix.ericsson.se   or   ...uunet!erix.ericsson.se!per