Subject: inbox-path in /usr/local/lib/pine-conf

From: Mike Roch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1993 16:38:12 +0100 (BST)

We have a Solaris machine and ~100 SunOS 4.1.n other machines.

For the moment we're happy to run Pine in binary-compatibility mode on 
Solaris, but the mail spool is in /var/mail and not /var/spool/mail.

The actual mailboxes (held on SunOS 4) are mounted by the Solaris machine
at /var/mail. Our problem is how to allow users (who move from one machine
to another) to see their mail. We don't really want to use IMAP; why make
them "login again"? If they edit "inbox-path" to /var/mail/_username_
they're Ok until they switch machines. If we setup inbox-path in
/usr/local/lib/pine-conf on the Solaris machine, we can't name each user's
- we need to be able to say /var/spool/$USER or somesuch). If we link
/var/spool/mail to /var/mail then Barry Cornelius reports locking
problems.(See below)  Advice please! 

Mike

==============================================================================
Mike Roch, Computer Services Centre,                          Tel: 0734 318430
The University, Whiteknights, Reading, RG6 2AF                Fax: 0734 753094

Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1993 18:47:01 +0000 (GMT)
From: Barry Cornelius <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Pine and Solaris

It is possible to run SunOS 4.1.x binaries with SunOS 5.1 (which is part
of Solaris 2.1) if you use the Binary Compatibility Package.  I have tried
this with a SunOS 4.1.x binary of pine.  Most aspects of pine will work.
For example, this message was sent from a 4.1.2 binary running on a
machine with SunOS 5.1.

However, I found a problem with file locking.  This problem occurs in two
places:
    (1) if you use NFS to mount /var/spool/mail rather than use
        IMAP, then pine hangs on starting it up. For example, you can't
        get the mail index, and there is a lock on your mailbox;
    (2) if you use the g command to goto a folder, then pine hangs:
        there is a lock on the file containing the folder.

---

From: Barry Cornelius <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1993 17:31:47 +0100 (BST)

On Fri, 1 Oct 1993, Mike Roch wrote:

> [stuff deleted]
> ... If we link

Although I was certainly under the impression that there were file-locking
problems using a 4.1.x binary with SunOS 5.1 back in March, at a later
date (perhaps in May) I was unable to reproduce the problem.  

We have successfully used a 4.1.2 binary on a 5.2 system without any
problems.  I thought I had sent a message to the pine-info mailing list
retracting my words, but I can't find it in my back numbers of this list. 
I'm sorry if I have misled anyone.

--
Barry Cornelius            Electronic mail: [email-masked]
Post:  Computing Service, University of Durham, Durham, DH1 3LE, England
Phone: Durham (091 or +44 91) 374 4717, Secretary:374 2892, Fax:374 3741

---

From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1993 09:51:49 -0700 (PDT)

I would like to add a note of caution.  Granted, I'm ``Mr. IMAP'' so you
may need to take this with more than the usual grain of salt (a 20 ton
boulder of salt, some may say...).  But, I think that using NFS as a means
of remote access to mail is, in general, a horrible idea.  There is a
reason that I invented IMAP. 

The problems range from performance, to scaling, to being able to enforce 
locks across the network.

The extra password problem can be solved by use of the rimap mechanism, 
and we *will* be supporting Kerberos, perhaps sooner rather than later.

We've tried our best to make NFS access work, due to the demand for it, 
but there are known sharp edges that will get you if you aren't careful.

---

From: "Jason R. Thorpe" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1993 10:12:14 -0700 (PDT)

> them "login again"? If they edit "inbox-path" to /var/mail/_username_
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not necessary if you use the pre-auth feature (rimapd).  It's described 
in the tech-notes.  Each user must have a .rhosts in their home directory 
with the appropriate entries...

Later...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason R. Thorpe          |                           |    434 Weatherford Hall
OSU Computer Science     | [email-masked] |     Corvallis, OR 97331
Support Staff            |                           |          (503) 737-9533

---

From: Jack Churchill <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1993 08:56:50 +1000 (EST)

> but there are known sharp edges that will get you if you aren't careful.

I agree that IMAP is better in most cases but for tightly coupled systems
on a local LAN I still prefer NFS.  I don't know much about rimap but
sounds like it's the best of both worlds. I've been using the NFS approach
with the recommended tricks like: 

/usr/var/spool/mail@server:/usr/var/spool/mail:rw:0:0:nfs:bg,hard,intr:noac:

for many months now and haven't had any problems as long as we don't try
to access the inbox from more than one machine at the same time.

  Jack N. Churchill                         | [email-masked]
  CSIRO  Division of Exploration and Mining | [email-masked]
  PO Box 136  North Ryde  NSW  2113         | Phone:  +61 2 887 8884
  Australia                                 | Fax:    +61 2 887 8921

---

From: Terry Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1993 16:47:06 -0700 (PDT)

On Sat, 2 Oct 1993, Jack Churchill wrote:

> on a local LAN I still prefer NFS.  

Jack, 
Could you elaborate on why you prefer NFS in the local cluster case?

We've had very good success with IMAP even in our NFS-linked clusters,
where the advantages Mark cited (performance, scaling, more robust
locking) seem equally useful. 

-teg

---

From: Jack Churchill <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1993 10:55:54 +1000 (EST)

> locking) seem equally useful. 

When I first installed pine I didn't like the imap method since the users
had to type their passwords each time the wanted to use pine.  They might
as well telnet to the server.  Telnet's more secure too since there's no
.rhost file to worry about as is the case with rimap (I think). I didn't
realize there was the rimap method at the time but now I will try it when
I have time.  For now the NFS-served imbox and folders works well so I
and the users have no complaints.  Rimap will scale better but for now we
only have a few unix workstations to worry about.

---

From: Elmar Kurgpold <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1993 09:24:47 -0700 (PDT)

I have heard many warnings that NFS is not the best way to read mail. 
However, we once had 100 Suns NFS mounting /var/spool/mail from various
places and I don't remember a single problem in 2 years.  I did experience an
"unexplained" catastrophe last year where I lost about 500 messages out of
the middle of my mail file.  (and no, it wasn't user error ;-) Of course, I
was not using pine at the time, but this shows you that it could happen. 
Your car can get broken into as well, but the chances of that happening
depend on where you park it, and nobody can say how much damage will occur. 

	-------------------------------------
	| Elmar Kurgpold                    |
	| Network Administrator             |
	| University of Southern California |
	| The Law Center                    |
	| [email-masked]              |
	| (213)740-2571 FAX: (213)740-5502  |
	-------------------------------------

---

From: Paul Ribeiro <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1993 14:45:31 -500 (EDT)

We have just started seeing some problems with NFS /var/spool/mail
under AIX, there are times when the servers don't seem to be able 
to establish a proper lock and it just sits there.....waiting and
waiting...sometimes the cows come home before rpc.lockd stops
complaining..
I guess it's time to install imapd
/P

---

From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1993 12:33:34 -0700 (PDT)

> waiting...sometimes the cows come home before rpc.lockd stops

Yes, rpc.lockd is famous for not working reliably.  I've heard of many sad
stories about people who trusted it, and now trust it no more.  Unfortunately,
it works most of the time, often enough that people are misled into trusting
it.

> I guess it's time to install imapd

Good idea!  ;-)

---

From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1993 12:37:44 -0700 (PDT)

Elmar -

     You are probably correct in your observation that you've used NFS for
mail reading for 2+ years without encountering many problems (you did lose
500+ messages once...).  Basically, it all hinges upon avoidance of certain
behaviors that would get you into trouble.  To a lesser extent, it also relies
upon certain mechanisms (.lock files, rpc.lockd) working properly and not
encountering one of their failure cases.

     If your user community is relatively sophisticated, and if the overall
size of the cluster is relatively small, and if the available bandwidth is
always guaranteed to be high, mail access via NFS should work out alright most
of the time.

     IMAP was designed to handle those cases where one or more of those
assumptions is not true.  At UW, none of those assumptions are true.

     I'm not going to tell you that you should switch from NFS to IMAP; I'm
just trying to keep people informed of the tradeoffs so they can make an
intelligent decision.  NFS does have the advantage of being able to leverage
off an existing infrastructure without having to build an IMAP infrastructure;
to my mind this is an unimportant advantage, but it is real nonetheless.

-- Mark --

---

From: Elmar Kurgpold <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1993 13:33:26 -0700 (PDT)

OK Mr. IMAP!  I've already switched!  I was supporting your opinion. 

	Elmar