1996-07-14 - Re: Execution of signed scripts received by e-mail

Header Data

From: Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org>
To: mcarpent@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu
Message Hash: 4ef1f5c8f8abf45b3bdfe1b8ade1023f4d963c3813683e38d1826379944faa3c
Message ID: <199607141903.OAA20371@homeport.org>
Reply To: <199607141042.FAA01300@Dusk.obscure.net>
UTC Datetime: 1996-07-14 21:38:39 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 05:38:39 +0800

Raw message

From: Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 05:38:39 +0800
To: mcarpent@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu
Subject: Re: Execution of signed scripts received by e-mail
In-Reply-To: <199607141042.FAA01300@Dusk.obscure.net>
Message-ID: <199607141903.OAA20371@homeport.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text

Matt Carpenter wrote:

| If I am reading the procmail docs correctly, then the following recipe
| should create a lockfile called 'emscrypt.lock' which will prevent more than
| one instance of the script from being run at a time
| :0:emscrypt
| |/PATH/emscrypt
| I agree it would be better if emscrypt used its own locks on the timestamp
| files.  However, it is my understanding (someone please correct me if I am
| wrong) that there is no simple way to provide file locking in Perl that is
| portable across the various flavours of Unix (see the descriptions of the
| fcntl and flock functions on p. 144-145 of the Camel book).  So I haven't
| tried to implement locking from within emscrypt yet.  Of course, if these
| functions are available on the majority of machines (anyone?) then I should
| probably use them.

	procmail includes a program called lockfile, which is based on
its thorough as hell lock mechanism tests.  If you're calling from
procmail, you might decide to require lockfile.


"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."