Re: [Nmh-workers] nmh over sshfs?

[rader]

 > > I just did some googling on this.  It seems that link() is really
 > > required when dealing with mail spools because it's the only atomic
 > > way to lock.  So this whole "no-links configuration option" idea is
 > > a bad idea, and I now realize that I'll never be able to safely inc
 > > over sshfs.
 > 
 > In a case like this, could nmh still get new mail by using POP or some
 > other method that lets the mail server handle locking?  

POPing mail from server to remote, which actually writes back the 
server via sshfs a little too perverse for me.

I'm going to write a wrapper around inc that SSHs to the server
instead.


 > Or, when a user
 > tries to run inc, nmh could:
 > 
 > - print a warning and have a -force option
 > - default to less-than-perfect locking

I might generate a decent patch for that.  With a little hindsight
(and coffee) I've decided to not use AFS because delivering to a mail
spool with a black-box-like AFS volume underneath and not having email
when AFS is down makes me nervious.  So I'm using sshfs (eg to send
this msg even), doing inc over ssh and hacking nmh dot file lock via
copy()/unlink() intead of link()/unlink().

steve
--