[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#470994: Permissions of user mailboxes in /var/mail



Dear alpiners,

In Debian, the Policy currently says: "Mailboxes are generally mode 660 user.mail unless the system administrator has chosen otherwise. . . . Mailboxes must be writable by group mail. " <http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-customized-programs.html#s-mail-transport-agents>

This refers to the permissions of mbox files in /var/mail/. Josip Rodin is trying to change this in Debian. In particular, he wants to remove the requirement that the mbox files be writable by the mail group. I wanted to ask the UW alpiners:

If Debian used mode 0600 for the mailboxes in /var/mail, would that be okay? In particular, I'd like to know if it would cause locking problems for alpine or the UW IMAPd. I'd be curious to also know if older versions of PINE would also be okay with the changes.

Note that Josip's suggested change is simply to remove the "must be writiable by group mail" sentence from the Policy, not to make a specific recommendation. I mention 0600 for the user mbox files as an example; it seems like the most restrictive the files could be to be useful, so if they are less restrictive than that (al)pine should be fine as well.

As I understand things, this change would be fine - but better safe than sorry when changing Policy!

For your entirely optional reading pleasure, the full text of Josip Rodin's message can be found at http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.bugs.general/387931 - I'm CC:ing the bug so this conversation can be recorded in the right place for Debian people to review it; please keep the bug on the CC:s. Josip quotes a message about pine from 1999 that can be found at http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/1999/06/msg00108.html ; it seems that Brock was mistaken, and a response can be found at http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/1999/06/msg00124.html .

-- Asheesh.

--
Q:	What do you call a boomerang that doesn't come back?
A:	A stick.


Reply to: