Valdis wrote: > On Fri, 03 May 2013 15:48:33 -0400, Ken Hornstein said: > > > Your analysis of the situation is correct; the temporary file is > > explicitly chmod'd to 0600 (which seems like the right thing to do). > > But it seems to me that perhaps the right thing to do here is have > > refile take care of fixing the permissions. What do others think?
I agree, given that post doesn't read the profile. > I'm not sure it's a good idea to have refile blindly changing > permissions which the user may have changed by hand for a specific > reason. I don't follow that based on Irwin's and Ken's explanations. The permissions are currently hard-coded to 0600. The only way refile would change them is if the Msg-Protect is different. > Is there a way for refile to know for sure that it's being called by post? No, and post uses fileproc so there's compatibility to worry about if we tried to add to the refile interface. So a user-provided fileproc needs to change the permissions if they want something other than 0600, but I don't think that's a problem. That's the way things are now, and this change wouldn't affect that. David _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
