On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 11:09:00AM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote:
> 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
Unless the same PID gets reused within one second... That may sound silly today,
but it's possible well within the lifetime of the universe - especially if Moore's Law
continues.
> 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.
Me neither, but my main point remains, procmail is not "wrong" in any
sense.
Regards.
