Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I disagree. To quote from the webpage: "A unique name can be anything
> that doesn't contain a colon (or slash) and doesn't start with a
> dot.".
>
> On that basis, the procmail filename is fine. Sure the webpage goes on
> to *suggest* one method for generating unique names, but there is no
> suggestion that that is the only way.
>
> One could argue that procmail is being smart by ensuring that the
> unique namespace it uses can only possibly collide with itself.
On the other hand, if procmail followed djb's (suggested) rules for naming
convention, it's guaranteed not to collide with any process anywhere in the
known universe at any point in the lifetime of the universe(1). You could
therefore argue that choosing another naming convention is "being dumb".
Perhaps two simultaneous procmails could collide? I don't use it, so I don't
know.
Charles
(1) Yes, if you have two machines with the same hostname delivering to the
same Maildir at the same instant, and the pids and delivery count of the two
processes match, you'll get a collision. I'm assuming you won't have two
hosts with the same hostname delivering to the same Maildir.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
