On 14-Mar-01 at 20:48:25 Philip Hazel wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, John Horne wrote:
>> We use 'require_files', but with local mailboxes (not NFS mounted). The
>> only problem (?) I could see is that we use it with the '+' option -
>> whereby the EACCES error is treated as a non-existant file and the
>> director is, thus, skipped. By running as root I would expect EACCES
>> not to occur and hence the director (or subsequent transport) would run
>> and (probably) give some other error - not what is wanted.
>
> Or do you mean you use $local_part as well as +? (i.e. "If this file
> cannot be seen by this user, skip this director"). Hmm. That does seem
> to be potentially useful.
>
Yes, I mean this latter case. Sorry for the confusion.
I note your later reply regarding having found a potential way around the
problem :-) Our scenario is obscure (to say the least), but is not critical.
In that respect *our* use of restrict_files is not a 'show stopper' - of
course that does not mean the same for other sites though :-)
John.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Horne, University of Plymouth, UK Tel: +44 (0)1752 233914
E-mail: jhorne@???
PGP key available from public key servers
