On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 12:01:09PM -0700, capercally.bleery670@??? wrote:
> On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 12:53:15PM -0400, Hendrik Boom wrote:
>
> > I had not seen these subtle discrepancies before. I am a bit
> > surprised at needing permissions on the directory whe I already
> > have read/write permissions on the file, which I own...
>
> That's because of the lock files. mutt needs to create a new file in
> that directory while it is modifying the mailbox. That prevents
> (temporarily) the mail daemon from delivering there until it is
> unlocked again, because such a simultaneous modification would result
> in corrupting the file.

That makes sense.

I've wondered how that locking works for a while now.
I've also wondered whether the locking still work reliably when using sshfs.

-- hendrik

>
> Not needing the locks is one of the advantages of mailbox storage
> options with a separate file for each message, such as maildirs.
> That's not to say that there are no disadvantages.
>
> Even with a single mailbox file (and with locks), it is possible
> to avoid permission troubles by putting the mailbox somewhere in
> your home directory, owned by you and your group. Of course all
> the pieces need to support that and need be told about it.
>
> --
> Ian
> _______________________________________________
> Dng mailing list
> Dng@???
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng