Philip Hazel wrote: > On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, Wakko Warner wrote: > > > You're creating a file with mode 777 and later chmodding it. > > No, I'm creating it with mode 000.
Yes, sorry, I have not dealt with umask in some time. > > I don't know the code that uses fopen, but it could also be possible that a > > file that already exsists with a specific mode gets it's mode clobbered. > > These files should not exist - they are all "working files" used by the > content scanning code. Anyway, whether they exist or not, they should > all have the mode that is being set for them. Agreed, but I was thinking of a generic case. > > One could use open(2) then fdopen(3), but again, I don't know the code well > > enough to know for sure. > > That is another possibility, but it would involve decoding the second > argument of "fopen", and I'm not sure it is worth it. I'm not fully familiar with the sematics of fopen (I personally dislike fopen &c) -- Lab tests show that use of micro$oft causes cancer in lab animals Got Gas??? -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
