On 17Jun15 12:37 -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 09:36:44PM +0200, bastian-muttu...@t6l.de wrote: > > On 13Jun15 22:55 -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote: > > I think it is worth to solve the trouble of file permissions. FMPOV this > > behaviour is not typical to unix philosophy, because you cannot > > influence file modes via the umask syscall. > > This is wrong. The file permissions are what they are quite > specifically and intentionally for security reasons. If you want to > make the files less secure, you are required to make a conscious > decision on a case-by-case basis, and take action to do so, and that > is as it should be.
Right, I want to make files less secure and I really know a lot about the implications. The point where I see room for improvement is the lack of configurability to be able to change the behaviour of writing out attachment files - not mailbox files. Everything tends to be configurable in mutt. Whereas, hard-coding umask and file mode bits does not look like the ultimate mutt-like solution FMPOV. > This issue has been discussed and debated ad nauseum in the past, and > this is one of those cases where the developers should do (and have > done) what is right without regard to what the users want, because > what the users want is simply just plain wrong--but they've proven too > difficult to be convinced of that. I'm not going to rehash the > argument here; if you search the archives, you should find the > discussion. > > Whether anyone likes it or not, the fact is that when it comes to > software security, most users--and even a large portion of the > developers--just don't have any idea what they are talking about, and > to some extent people who know better need to make the decision for > them to prevent the possibility of bad things happening on a > wide-spread basis. This is one of those cases--the small > inconvenience of having to manually change the permissions is VASTLY > outweighed by the harm that could be done by allowing for the file > permissions to be less restrictive by default. I can still survive while doing that. But I have to admit, I do not get the clue, why I should want my attachment files to be handled in an imposed and uninfluenceable 'top-secret' manner. All other files I work with in the same 'classification level' are created with the umask setting I chose in .profile. > However, it would be good to document this somewhere, since it's come > up more than once. Cheers, -- Bastian
