Re: [linux@bucksch.org: Bug#101186: purge removes new mail in spool dir]
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 10:09:02PM +0100, Mark Baker wrote:
> I think the current behaviour is basically correct - purge should remove all
> traces of a program, and that should include temporary files which can't be
> used by any package other than the one being purged (purge implies that you
> don't expect to ever re-install the package being purged).
Regardless of any intents to ever reinstall the package, purging the
package is in sofar reversible that one can reinstall the package and
put back the configuration. This is all under the control of the user.
The mail is very probably never going to be resent ever and the user
probably has very little control over it.
Please look at squid. IMHO it does the right thing, for reasonable values
of "right". Squid simply does not remove your cache files on purge.
Instead it notifies the user that the purge operation did not remove
the spool dir and how these remaining files can be removed manually.
This way, any errors will drive you into the safe side, not off the cliff.
"purge implies .." or "policy says .." are plain dangerous if they're
just assumptions. Be careful out there, because you may never know what
the users were thinking when they pulled the trigger and shot into their
feet. :-)
Is it possible for exim's postrm to check if there is any mail in any
spool "owned" by exim? You could then continue the purge if the spools
are all empty and if that is not the case, print a message and skip the
spool purge or abort the purge operation altogether.
Cheers,
Joost
Reply to: