Re: [PATCH] Add $umask for mailboxes and attachments
On 2007-03-17 11:47:42 -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> Barring gross negligence in the extreme on the OS designer's part,
> Mutt using a umask of 077 solves the problem, guaranteed, no matter
> what the operating system does. And this protection is provided at
> the low, low cost of the user occasionally having to run chmod when
> they actually do want people to be able to read their files.
I agree, but if the chmod could be done from Mutt, it would be better.
for instance, after the filename, a question could optionally be asked
by Mutt whether the user's umask should be used or not.
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.org/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arenaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)