aks@hub (Alan Stebbens , ks%ccse@hub.ucsb.EDU) (12/14/89)
After looking through the code, I notice that neither "dist" nor
"post", which it invokes, use the "-alias" switch. All the other
user front ends, such as "repl", and "comp" use "-alias". Is this
intentional? I am about to reach the critical mass level of
frustration and dive in and change the code to use the "-alias"
switch for "dist".
Also, I notice that "post" doesn't even reference the
".mh_profile". Is this also intentional? This means that, even
if it did support the "-alias" switch, you couldn't use the
command line feature of the profile:
post: post -alias Aliases
Can someone shed some light on this?
Thanks
Alan Stebbens <aks@hub.ucsb.edu> (805) 961-3221
Center for Computational Sciences and Engineering (CCSE)
University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB)
3111 Engineering I, Santa Barbara, CA 93106
("McFly... anybody home in there??)
((It's hard to show vocal inflection using ASCII))jromine@ics.uci.edu (John Romine) (12/14/89)
(Alan Stebbens , ks%ccse@hub.ucsb.EDU) writes: >After looking through the code, I notice that neither "dist" nor >"post", which it invokes, use the "-alias" switch. ... >I am about to ... change the code to use the "-alias" >switch for "dist". I don't know why dist doesn't support -alias. By all means, add the code and send a diff to me. I'll include it in future releases. >Also, I notice that "post" doesn't even reference the >".mh_profile". Is this also intentional? Yes. "send" is a front-end to post. You should not call post directly; use "send" instead. -- John Romine
louie@haven.umd.edu (Louis Mamakos) (12/14/89)
The `send' program does take the -alias switch. On another topic, has anyone ever hacked MH to make it safe for multiple concurrent processes? It looks to me that two processes fiddling with a folder simultaneously will hose each other, since it seems that no locking is done. This is the reason that I don't use the slocal program to automagically distribute mail to folders as it arrives. How could you safely modify folders when mail could be asynchronously stuffed into them?
abbo@tank.uchicago.edu (Laurie Abbott) (12/14/89)
In article <1989Dec14.043413.13647@haven.umd.edu> louie@haven.umd.edu (Louis Mamakos) writes: > It looks to me that two processes > fiddling with a folder simultaneously will hose each other, since it > seems that no locking is done. > > This is the reason that I don't use the slocal program to > automagically distribute mail to folders as it arrives. How could you > safely modify folders when mail could be asynchronously stuffed into > them? I've been using slocal for some time and have never had any problem with concurrent processes axing each other (though we have other mysterious mh bugs %:)). My automagic mail goes into certain discreet files in certain folders, nothing elaborate, but it is serviceable. I don't think I am willing to give up the magic even if it's dangerous. Two automagic files are dumped into ~/Mail, which I modify often; only problem I've ever had was a couple of core dumps, where were (as usual) operator instigated because of a faulty .maildelivery file. I cannot, however, convince .maildelivery to pipe any receipts through shell commands, though I've decided it's probably the fault of the shell I run (a modified tcsh) rather than mh.