Ken, On Tuesday 26 April 2005 06:08, Ken Schneider wrote:

On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 08:42 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:

...

Erik Jakobsen wrote:

...

...

erik@lajka3:~/.mozilla/default/dfiph4je.slt/Mail> ls -Al urbakken.dk/ total 249963 -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:22 Drafts -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:22 Drafts.msf... -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 0 2004-11-12 05:21 filterlog.html... -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 68513263 2005-04-25 15:26 Inbox -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 4958 2005-04-26 12:57 Inbox.msf

Many permissions in your maildir are wrong. Just fix them with 'chmod 644 *' from that directory.

I don't understand the 644 perms for private files. That will give -anyone- logged in access to someone else's mail, quite a no-no as far as I am concerned. 600 seems more correct (700 for dirs).

Witness: % ll -d ~/.mozilla/default drwx------ 4 rschulz users 44 2004-07-10 18:09 /home/rschulz/.mozilla/default/ % ll -d ~/.mozilla/default/stzvnglp.slt drwx------ 4 rschulz users 4096 2004-07-10 18:07 /home/rschulz/.mozilla/default/stzvnglp.slt/ Those directories are protected by the inaccessibility of directories higher up in the hierarchy. Now, if those directories had world execute bits _and_ someone knew the profile directory name (the funky "stzvnglp.slt" in my case), then they could get at work-readable files within.

Ken Schneider

Randall Schulz

On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 06:22 -0700, Randall R Schulz wrote:

Hi,

I see my language was a bit ambiguous...

...

Witness:

Add this example:

% ll -d ~/.mozilla drwx------ 6 rschulz users 112 2005-02-25 14:47 /home/rschulz/.mozilla/

Try this:

The mailbox directories whose permissions include group and world read are protected by the inaccessibility of directories higher up in the hierarchy.

...

Now, if those directories had world execute bits _and_ someone knew the profile directory name (the funky "stzvnglp.slt" in my case), then they could get at work-readable files within.

And this:

Now, if the ~/.mozilla, ~/.mozilla/defualt and ~/.mozilla/default/stzvnglp.slt/ all had world execute permissions set _and_ someone knew the profile directory name (the funky "stzvnglp.slt" in my case), then they could get at those world-readable mailbox directories and files within.

But why have perms to files that someone -might- be able to guess at. Another strange one is look at the perms in /home. I can cd to -any- login home dir which -should- not be possible. Seems like someone really screwed up with that one. Do ll -a in someone's home dir and see how many files you have read access to. -No one- but the owner and root should have any access to their files. I thought "security through obscurity" was M$'s motto not linux's. -- Ken Schneider UNIX since 1989, linux since 1994, SuSE since 1998 "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the day they start making vacuum cleaners." -Ernst Jan Plugge

On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 07:15 -0700, Randall R Schulz wrote:

Ken,

Read what I wrote. You'd have to enable execute permissions in all those leading directories for that to work. If you enabled execute _and_ read on those directories, then people could simply look at the directories and access those mail files.

But by all means, be as paranoid as you want. But you're much better off understanding how things work than applying some blanket "solution."

I fully understand how they work, I have working with unix/linux since 1989. The whole reason that unix/linux has been more secure than MS is because it restricted access to files only to the owner/root by default. The owner still has the ability to share their files to whomever they want but should not be the system default. Many places use linux as a server with many 100's of people having access. Now who do you trust? All I am saying is that this should -not be the system default. You can always run your home or personal at work machine they way you want. From a server stand point this is a no-no. How many people keep personal files in their home dir, most do. By default they are created 644 giving -anyone- the ability to view their private stuff without permission. -- Ken Schneider UNIX since 1989, linux since 1994, SuSE since 1998 "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the day they start making vacuum cleaners." -Ernst Jan Plugge

Erik Jakobsen wrote:

Felix Miata wrote:

...

Mozilla & TB use your normal umask when creating mail files, which IIRC on a default install is 022, resulting in 644 permissions.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here Felix. Could you explain it for me ?.

http://en.tldp.org/HOWTO/Security-HOWTO/file-security.html section 5.1 Erik Jakobsen wrote:

I want to say thank you too all of you, that has helped me. I have set the permission to 600 now for all the dir's in /Mail.

I don't think they'll stay 600. Check your default umask. Run Moz a while, including another "compact folders" after doing some email deletion. Then check the existing permissions. They'll probably be switched back to your default, which is probably 644. -- "Love your neighbor as yourself." Matthew 22:39 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/

Randall R Schulz wrote:

Felix, Erik,

On Tuesday 26 April 2005 08:18, Felix Miata wrote:

...

...

Erik Jakobsen wrote:

...

I want to say thank you too all of you, that has helped me. I have set the permission to 600 now for all the dir's in /Mail.

I don't think they'll stay 600. Check your default umask.

The Unix (and Linux) umask _only_ affects files when they're initially created. If the modes of those files change later, it's because of an explicit chmod (command or system call) invoked by some user, script or program later on.

...

Run Moz a while, including another "compact folders" after doing some email deletion. Then check the existing permissions. They'll probably be switched back to your default, which is probably 644.

Felix Miata

Randall Schulz

I have Googled, and have looked at the man:chmod in konqueror, but could you please tell me the effect of doing an umask, as I'm not quite convinced what it is in fact ?. Erik Jakobsen

Randall R Schulz wrote:

Erik,

On Tuesday 26 April 2005 09:02, Erik Jakobsen wrote:

...

Randall R Schulz wrote: ...

...

Randall Schulz

I have Googled, and have looked at the man:chmod in konqueror, but could you please tell me the effect of doing an umask, as I'm not quite convinced what it is in fact ?.

I've done this before on this list, but here goes...

Every time a program creates a file, it specifies a set of permission bits. If the program is a plain file, the program will usually (_usually_, not always) specify 0666 (read+write for owner, group and others). If the program is creating a directory or an executable file, it will usually use 0777 (read+write+execute for owner, group and others).

The actual mode of the file that gets created as a result has its mode modified from that specified by the creating program based on the value of the umask. Specifically, each mode bit that is _set_ in the umask is _removed from_ the mode specified by the creating program. So having more bits set in the umask yields files with _less_ permission.

Typical umask values are 022 (only the owner will be able to write the file but all will be able to read it). Another common value is 02, which is more permissive: The owner and others in the owner's group will be able to read and write the file; all users will be able to read it.

In shared environments such as ISP's that allow so-called "shell" access, it's common to use a umask such as 066 or 077, in which case only the owner can read or write the file. Others would be able to execute an program file (assuming they can get to it in the first place, which often would not be the case) or, if it's a directory, access files within it.

The latter case (execute permission on a directory) only permits the directory to be examined by the kernel when looking up a specific file by name. Examining the directory to enumerate its contents (such as what the "ls" command does or the use of wild cards in the shell) requires read access on the directory.

The Unix permission scheme is a bit intricate and perhaps arcane, but it makes sense and works well once you understand it. It lacks the fine-grained control possible with ACLs, but they're available, too, nowadays if you want them. But don't ask me about that. I'm not too well versed.

Randall Schulz

...

Erik Jakobsen

Thanks Randall. That needs some more reading, and maybe some more "?'s". Erik Jakobsen

Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

Erik, ........(snippee)

I've done this before on this list, but here goes...

Every time a program creates a file, it specifies a set of permission bits. If the program is a plain file, the program will usually (_usually_, not always) specify 0666 (read+write for owner, group and others). If the program is creating a directory or an executable file, it will usually use 0777 (read+write+execute for owner, group and others). Thank you Eril and Randall. Although I knew that the umask was related to file security, I did not know how it was applied. So when the file is created the umask decreases the privileges and then only the owner, in SuSE, can change the permissions, but the umask will not affect the new permissions ie a file is created (0666), umask(022) intervenes and makes it (0644). If the user now changes the permissions to 0666 the umask does not reset the permissions.

[snip]

I hope it helped Erik as it certainly did help me. It helped me a bit, and just a bit. But I will print the thread out, and read it many times, google and so on, cause its nice to get behind

Hylton Conacher (ZR1HPC) wrote: the secret. Again thanks to all for your replies, that developed more than I have in my mind when I wrote the "startmessage" :-) Erik Jakobsen

On Thursday, April 28, 2005 @9:30 AM, Randall R Schulz wrote:

Hylton,

On Thursday 28 April 2005 08:04, Hylton Conacher (ZR1HPC) wrote:

...

Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

Erik, ........(snippee)

I've done this before on this list, but here goes...

Every time a program creates a file, it specifies a set of permission bits. If the program is a plain file, the program will usually (_usually_, not always) specify 0666 (read+write for owner, group and others). If the program is creating a directory or an executable file, it will usually use 0777 (read+write+execute for owner, group and others).

Thank you Eril and Randall. Although I knew that the umask was related to file security, I did not know how it was applied. So when the file is created the umask decreases the privileges and then only the owner, in SuSE, can change the permissions, but the umask will not affect the new permissions ie a file is created (0666), umask(022) intervenes and makes it (0644). If the user now changes the permissions to 0666 the umask does not reset the permissions.

Correct.

On _all_ Unix and Linux systems, only the owner of a file (and root) may change its mode. Having permission to write the file, e.g. (or any other permission controlled by the file modes) does not (cannot) grant non-owners the ability to change the file's mode. If you think about it for a moment, were it otherwise, you could not simultaneously allow someone to write the file without losing all control over access to it.

There are other very different permissions schemes based on the notion of "capabilities," and such systems often define the ability to alter an object's permissions as an independently grantable privilege. Some also make the ability to grant a capability as an explicitly controlled capability. Capabilities are powerful and flexible as well as often confusing and subject to unintended consequences.

...

[snip]

I hope it helped Erik as it certainly did help me.

I'm glad for that.

Randall Schulz

Sorry about the earlier post. I wasn't answering the question you were asking (about creating new files). If you're interested in learning more about umask, type "man umask" in a shell. Here's the first part of what comes out. If you use it it's native form (say in a script), it masks against 777. When setting default file permissions via open, it uses 666. (666&022 giving you the 644). -- UMASK(2) Linux Programmer's Manual UMASK(2) NAME umask - set file creation mask SYNOPSIS #include #include mode_t umask(mode_t mask); DESCRIPTION umask sets the umask to mask & 0777. The umask is used by open(2) to set initial file permis- sions on a newly-created file. Specifically, permissions in the umask are turned off from the mode argument to open(2) (so, for example, the common umask default value of 022 results in new files being created with permissions 0666 & ~022 = 0644 = rw-r--r-- in the usual case where the mode is specified as 0666).

On Thursday, April 28, 2005 @ 7:44 PM, Erik Jakobsen wrote:

Greg Wallace wrote: snip.

Hello Greg. Think it's me you want to write to ?. No reason for being sorry. I have read that about man umask, but I need to go deeper to start. I think the & is for octal, and when you write it down on a piece of paper as ones and zeros you'll get the result. Its a matter of adding/subtracting binaries ?.

Erik Jakobsen

Of course you're right. I saw that ~ sign when I read it, but I was thinking 066 & 022 would be 644. I just did it on a piece of paper and, just as you say, it's 066 & ~022 = 066 & 055 = 644. I knew that was the default for new files, but I didn't realize it was implemented via umask that way. Greg Wallace

On Friday, April 29, 2005 @ 9:16 AM, Jul wrote:

On Friday 29 April 2005 01:51, Greg Wallace wrote:

...

Of course you're right. I saw that ~ sign when I read it, but I was thinking 066 & 022 would be 644. I just did it on a piece of paper and, just as you say, it's 066 & ~022 = 066 & 055 = 644. I knew that was the default for new files, but I didn't realize it was implemented via umask that way.

Greg Wallace

~022=~(000 010 010) =000 101 101=055 066&055=(000 110 110)&(000 101 101)=044 ------------------------------- other way: 000 110 110 000 101 101 ------------------ 000 100 10

Cheers Jul.

Yeah, I got a little sloppy there (it was the wee hours of the morning). What I meant to write was - 666 & ~022 = 666 & 755 = (110 110 110 & 111 011 011) = 110 010 010 = 644 Greg Wallace

Ken Schneider wrote:

On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 18:02 +0200, Erik Jakobsen wrote:

...

Randall R Schulz wrote: I have Googled, and have looked at the man:chmod in konqueror, but could you please tell me the effect of doing an umask, as I'm not quite convinced what it is in fact ?.

Erik Jakobsen

Trying to remember from a failing memory...

umask is the invert of the permissions you want to set. On files a umask of 000 would create files with 666 perms. With 022 it would be 644 and with 044 it would be 622 and last 066 would result in perms of 600.

octal 666 = -rw-rw-rw 644 = -rw-r--r- 622 = -rw--w--w (useless as write permission infers read permission) 600 = -rw------

Hi Ken. If I say that I understand it its not the true. Maybe first of all because I'm still not quite sure on what umask does, but will read what Randall wrote to me. How can for instance 000 be equal to 666 ?. Not that I say, that I doubt what You tell me, but I myself am not sure on how ?. Erik Jakobsen

Erik Jakobsen wrote:

If I say that I understand it its not the true. Maybe first of all because I'm still not quite sure on what umask does, but will read what Randall wrote to me.

How can for instance 000 be equal to 666 ?. Not that I say, that I doubt what You tell me, but I myself am not sure on how ?.

Did my answer to your puzzlement not reach your mailbox? http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=suse-linux-e&m=111452964415507&w=2 -- "Love your neighbor as yourself." Matthew 22:39 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/

On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 19:37 +0200, Erik Jakobsen wrote:

Ken Schneider wrote:

...

Trying to remember from a failing memory...

umask is the invert of the permissions you want to set. On files a umask of 000 would create files with 666 perms. With 022 it would be 644 and with 044 it would be 622 and last 066 would result in perms of 600.

octal 666 = -rw-rw-rw 644 = -rw-r--r- 622 = -rw--w--w (useless as write permission infers read permission) 600 = -rw------

Hi Ken. If I say that I understand it its not the true. Maybe first of all because I'm still not quite sure on what umask does, but will read what Randall wrote to me.

How can for instance 000 be equal to 666 ?. Not that I say, that I doubt what You tell me, but I myself am not sure on how ?.

umask actually subtracts from what would be full access. full access = 666 on files, 777 on dirs. (owner,group,world) umask 022 = 644, subtracting 2 from the second and last bits. Keep in mind that the numbers are octal base 8. There are many more that can be used when you consider that executable files need the execute bit set which would mean full access = 777/rwxrwxrwx. It can be confusing but once you understand the bits it will look easy. octal codes for files are: rwx = 7 - 4 for read, 2 for write and 1 for execute rw- = 6 - 4 for read, 2 for write with no execution r-- = 4 - 4 for read only octal codes for directories are: rwx = 7 - as above except the execute bit gives access to the directory r-x = 5 - 4 for reading the directory file, that is the . file to list the contents and 1 for directory access. If you don't have access to the directory you can not list its contents even with read access. There is one other bit called the sticky bit, but we will reserve that for another lesson. Create some files and dirs and change the mode on them to get a feel for what the bits do. -- Ken Schneider UNIX since 1989, linux since 1994, SuSE since 1998 "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the day they start making vacuum cleaners." -Ernst Jan Plugge

On Tuesday 26 April 2005 21:01, Randall R Schulz wrote:

Ken,

On Tuesday 26 April 2005 11:30, Ken Schneider wrote:

...

...

...

umask actually subtracts from what would be full access.

Actually, it subtracts from the mode supplied by the program that is issuing the system call to create the file.

Or to be absolutely accurate, it doesn't subtract, it does a logical and between the desired permissions and the inversion of the umask if you have an umask of 222 and you try to create a file with mode 444, that doesn't give you (through subtraction) 222, it gives you 444 & 555 = 444.

Anders, On Tuesday 26 April 2005 12:19, Anders Johansson wrote:

On Tuesday 26 April 2005 21:01, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

Ken,

On Tuesday 26 April 2005 11:30, Ken Schneider wrote:

...

...

...

umask actually subtracts from what would be full access.

Actually, it subtracts from the mode supplied by the program that is issuing the system call to create the file.

Or to be absolutely accurate, it doesn't subtract, it does a logical and between the desired permissions and the inversion of the umask

Actually, the term "subtract" _is_ appropriately used here. A Unix file mode is not really a number, it a concise representation of a set. We only use the numeric representation as a convenience (and we don't always do that, often preferring a symbolic representation that makes the set aspect a little more obvious). Logicians and mathematicians define the notion of set subtraction. So in this context, that sense of "subtract" is correct.

if you have an umask of 222 and you try to create a file with mode 444, that doesn't give you (through subtraction) 222, it gives you 444 & 555 = 444.

Randall Schulz

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005, Laurent Renard wrote:

Hello everyone,

i've forgotten the command that will enable a program automatically on boot ... It's someting like "update rc.d ..."

Could you help me ?

If your program is already on the machine you can run chkconfig For example if the name of your program is test, run chkconfig --level 35 test on This will set the command to start upon starting in run level 3 or 5. run chkconfig --list to see the programs in the list. then you can do "chkconfig --list|grep on" to see which ones are currently on. BB

On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 17:18 +0200, Laurent Renard wrote:

Le mercredi 27 avril 2005 à 10:04 -0500, Brad Bendily a écrit :

...

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005, Laurent Renard wrote:

...

Hello everyone,

i've forgotten the command that will enable a program automatically on boot ... It's someting like "update rc.d ..."

Could you help me ?

If your program is already on the machine you can run chkconfig For example if the name of your program is test, run

chkconfig --level 35 test on

This will set the command to start upon starting in run level 3 or 5.

run chkconfig --list to see the programs in the list. then you can do "chkconfig --list|grep on"

to see which ones are currently on.

BB

Thank you brad, but how could i start it up ... automatically on boot ?

He just gave you the answer: chkconfig --level 35 test on test is the name of the command you want to start at boot. change test to the name of your command. -- Ken Schneider UNIX since 1989, linux since 1994, SuSE since 1998 "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the day they start making vacuum cleaners." -Ernst Jan Plugge

On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 17:31 +0200, Laurent Renard wrote:

Le mercredi 27 avril 2005 à 11:26 -0400, Ken Schneider a écrit :

...

...

...

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005, Laurent Renard wrote:

...

Hello everyone,

i've forgotten the command that will enable a program automatically on boot ... It's someting like "update rc.d ..."

Could you help me ?

If your program is already on the machine you can run chkconfig

thanks for all to everyone

Good evening ;)

PLEASE do not use html email on this list. -- Ken Schneider UNIX since 1989, linux since 1994, SuSE since 1998 "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the day they start making vacuum cleaners." -Ernst Jan Plugge

Ken, On Tuesday 26 April 2005 09:35, Ken Schneider wrote:

...

Trying to remember from a failing memory...

Meaning you forget where the documentation is?

umask is the invert of the permissions you want to set. On files a umask of 000 would create files with 666 perms. With 022 it would be 644 and with 044 it would be 622 and last 066 would result in perms of 600.

octal 666 = -rw-rw-rw 644 = -rw-r--r- 622 = -rw--w--w (useless as write permission infers read permission) 600 = -rw------

While I'm sure you mean "implies" (since a permission can not perform the logical act of inferring), it's simply not true. There are purposes for write-only files and especially for write-only directories (in conjunction with execute permission, of course, and often the sticky bit, too).

Ken Schneider

Randall Schulz

Greg, On Wednesday 27 April 2005 13:42, Greg Wallace wrote:

On Wednesday, April 27, 2005 A 5:15 AM, Randall R Schultz wrote:

...

On Tuesday 26 April 2005 09:35, Ken Schneider wrote:

...

...

Trying to remember from a failing memory...

Meaning you forget where the documentation is?

...

umask is the invert of the permissions you want to set. On files a umask of 000 would create files with 666 perms. With 022 it would be 644 and with 044 it would be 622 and last 066 would result in perms of 600.

octal 666 = -rw-rw-rw 644 = -rw-r--r- 622 = -rw--w--w (useless as write permission infers read permission) 600 = -rw------

While I'm sure you mean "implies" (since a permission can not perform the logical act of inferring), it's simply not true.

There are purposes for write-only files and especially for write-only directories (in conjunction with execute permission, of course, and often the sticky bit, too).

...

Ken Schneider

Randall Schulz

Wouldn't umask 000 mean 777 under a 000 mask= 777, and umask 022 mean 777 under 022 mask = 755? At the bit level, 000=0000 0000 0000, 777= 0111 0111 0111, and 022=0000 0010 0010? Then umask 022 = 0111 0111 0111 under a mask of 0000 0010 0010 = 0111 0101 0101 = 755? I believe this is what Anders Johansson was saying with his 4/26/2005 @ 11:19 AM post.

I'm finding that rather hard to decode, but one thing is for sure, when we give Unix file modes in numeric form, we use octal, not hex, so each digit in the octal number represents _three_ bits, not four. As for the exchange between Anders J. and I, that was about the semantics of the words we use to describe the application of the umask value. I'm pretty sure Anders and I would agree about what file mode would result from any given creat(...) call and umask value.

Greg Wallace

Randall Schulz

On Tuesday 26 April 2005 12:35, Ken Schneider wrote:

octal 666  =  -rw-rw-rw 644  =  -rw-r--r- 622  =  -rw--w--w (useless as write permission infers read permission) 600  =  -rw------

Try this way: 666 rw- rw- rw- 644 rw- r-- r-- 622 rw- -w- -w- ... read write execute 2**2=4 2**1=2 2**0=1 So, 731 rwx -wx --x Cheers, Jul.

Randall R Schulz wrote:

Ken,

On Tuesday 26 April 2005 06:08, Ken Schneider wrote:

...

On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 08:42 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:

...

Erik Jakobsen wrote:

...

...

erik@lajka3:~/.mozilla/default/dfiph4je.slt/Mail> ls -Al urbakken.dk/ total 249963 -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:22 Drafts -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:22 Drafts.msf... -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 0 2004-11-12 05:21 filterlog.html... -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 68513263 2005-04-25 15:26 Inbox -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 4958 2005-04-26 12:57 Inbox.msf

Many permissions in your maildir are wrong. Just fix them with 'chmod 644 *' from that directory.

I don't understand the 644 perms for private files. That will give -anyone- logged in access to someone else's mail, quite a no-no as far as I am concerned. 600 seems more correct (700 for dirs).

Witness:

% ll -d ~/.mozilla/default drwx------ 4 rschulz users 44 2004-07-10 18:09 /home/rschulz/.mozilla/default/

% ll -d ~/.mozilla/default/stzvnglp.slt drwx------ 4 rschulz users 4096 2004-07-10 18:07 /home/rschulz/.mozilla/default/stzvnglp.slt/

Those directories are protected by the inaccessibility of directories higher up in the hierarchy.

Now, if those directories had world execute bits _and_ someone knew the profile directory name (the funky "stzvnglp.slt" in my case), then they could get at work-readable files within.

...

Ken Schneider

Randall Schulz

Thanks gentlemen for your interest. I'm a bit confused what I shall set the different permissions to ?. Here's mine, but they don't tell much. erik@lajka3:~> % ll -d ~/.mozilla/default bash: fg: %: no such job erik@lajka3:~> mc erik@lajka3:~> % ll -d ~/.mozilla/default/dfiph4je.slt/ bash: fg: %: no such job Erik Jakobsen

Randall R Schulz wrote:

Erik,

On Tuesday 26 April 2005 06:36, Erik Jakobsen wrote:

...

Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

...

Randall Schulz

Thanks gentlemen for your interest. I'm a bit confused what I shall set the different permissions to ?.

Here's mine, but they don't tell much.

erik@lajka3:~> % ll -d ~/.mozilla/default bash: fg: %: no such job erik@lajka3:~> mc

The percent sign is a stock placeholder for a (non-root) shell prompt. (I don't go in for all those fancy prompts--all I want is the history number.) I did not intend the '%' to be submitted to any shell.

Ok, now it looks like that: :~/.mozilla> ll -d ~/.mozilla/default drwx------ 3 erik users 80 2005-04-26 12:21 /home/erik/.mozilla/default

...

erik@lajka3:~> % ll -d ~/.mozilla/default/dfiph4je.slt/ bash: fg: %: no such job

The problem you're having (now that I look back at your original post in this thread) is that many of the files in your ".../Mail" directory don't have write permissions _even for you_. Change to that directory and issue this command (no '%', of course):

% cd ~/.mozilla/default/dfiph4je.slt/Mail % chmod -R u+w *

After this, Mozilla should cease complaining and start functioning.

One of the /Mail dir's now looks so: erik@lajka3:~/.mozilla/default/dfiph4je.slt/Mail> ls -al urbakken.dk/ total 182613 drwxr--r-- 2 erik users 7208 2005-04-26 15:53 . drwxr--r-- 7 erik users 208 2005-04-26 13:27 .. -rw------- 1 erik users 138572 2005-02-25 11:13 Aase -rw------- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Aase.msf -rw------- 1 erik users 40437 2005-04-18 06:39 aleo -rw------- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 aleo.msf -rw------- 1 erik users 5001 2005-02-22 10:00 BilkaMusik -rw------- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 BilkaMusik.msf -rw------- 1 erik users 1629 2005-01-10 08:54 Billigmedien -rw------- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Billigmedien.msf -rw------- 1 erik users 25574 2005-03-13 10:55 BootDisk -rw------- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 BootDisk.msf -rw------- 1 erik users 12153 2005-02-24 17:25 CAcert -rw------- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 CAcert.msf erik@lajka3:~/.mozilla/default/dfiph4je.slt/Mail> ls -Al urbakken-2.dk/ total 8 -rw------- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 13:27 Drafts -rw------- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 13:27 Drafts.msf -rw------- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 13:27 Inbox -rw------- 1 erik users 1186 2005-04-26 13:27 Inbox.msf -rw------- 1 erik users 61 2005-04-26 16:21 popstate.dat -rw------- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 13:27 Sent -rw------- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 13:27 Sent.msf -rw------- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 13:27 Templates -rw------- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 13:27 Templates.msf -rw------- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 13:27 Trash -rw------- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 13:27 Trash.msf erik@lajka3:~/.mozilla/default/dfiph4je.slt/Mail> ls -Al urbakken-1.dk/ total 104 -rw------- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:23 Drafts -rw------- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:23 Drafts.msf -rw------- 1 erik users 46215 2005-04-26 16:08 Inbox -rw------- 1 erik users 2273 2005-04-26 16:08 Inbox.msf -rw------- 1 erik users 25 2005-04-26 12:56 msgFilterRules.dat -rw------- 1 erik users 61 2005-04-26 16:20 popstate.dat -rw------- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:23 Sent -rw------- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:23 Sent.msf -rw------- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:23 Templates -rw------- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:23 Templates.msf -rw------- 1 erik users 44109 2005-04-26 16:00 Trash -rw------- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 16:00 Trash.msf erik@lajka3:~/.mozilla/default/dfiph4je.slt/Mail> ls -Al pop3.mail.dk/ total 116 -rw------- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:24 Drafts -rw------- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:24 Drafts.msf -rw------- 1 erik users 47110 2005-04-26 16:00 Inbox -rw------- 1 erik users 3258 2005-04-26 16:00 Inbox.msf -rw------- 1 erik users 25 2005-04-26 12:57 msgFilterRules.dat -rw------- 1 erik users 61 2005-04-26 16:21 popstate.dat -rw------- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:24 Sent -rw------- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:24 Sent.msf -rw------- 1 erik users 21199 2005-04-26 14:42 TDC -rw------- 1 erik users 1865 2005-04-26 15:05 TDC.msf -rw------- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:24 Templates -rw------- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:24 Templates.msf -rw------- 1 erik users 25911 2005-04-26 16:00 Trash -rw------- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 16:00 Trash.msf Erik

...

Erik Jakobsen

Randall Schulz

Felix Miata wrote:

Ken Schneider wrote:

...

On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 08:42 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:

...

...

Many permissions in your maildir are wrong. Just fix them with 'chmod 644 *' from that directory.

...

I don't understand the 644 perms for private files. That will give -anyone- logged in access to someone else's mail, quite a no-no as far as I am concerned. 600 seems more correct (700 for dirs).

Mozilla & TB use your normal umask when creating mail files, which IIRC on a default install is 022, resulting in 644 permissions.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here Felix. Could you explain it for me ?. Erik

Felix Miata wrote:

Erik Jakobsen wrote:

...

erik@lajka3:~/.mozilla/default/dfiph4je.slt/Mail> ls -Al urbakken.dk/ total 249963 -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 16865608 2004-12-25 17:42 Debian -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 3797681 2005-04-25 09:26 Freshmeat -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 1633701 2005-01-16 09:15 freshmeatold -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 68513263 2005-04-25 15:26 Inbox -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 64899956 2005-02-24 17:27 indboxold -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 1070415 2005-03-16 11:09 Jan Erik -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 2396196 2005-01-24 09:13 janerikold -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 2398845 2005-04-25 14:07 KDE -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 1686525 2004-11-11 14:25 Manni -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 4193779 2005-04-19 16:52 Min -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 4391922 2005-04-25 05:52 Motion -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 17297062 2005-03-12 16:02 sendt -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 2180170 2005-02-22 09:59 SHG -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 26629560 2005-04-25 15:26 SuSE -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 15599618 2005-03-28 07:39 suse1 -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 2861728 2005-01-27 12:57 Towertalk -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 3275971 2005-02-23 07:34 TowerTalk -r--r--r-- 1 erik users 1119416 2005-04-25 14:15 Wine -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 1924707 2005-01-27 12:57 Xastir

Besides your permissions problem, it appears you have another problem brewing - file sizes are quite large. Using the delete button or the menu option "empty trash" don't actually delete anything. To get your files down to size when "deleting" anything you must follow up with the file menu option "compact folders". It is only then that anything is actually deleted.

Ok Felix. I tried to compact files: -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 16865608 2004-12-25 17:42 Debian -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Debian.msf -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Force.msf -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 3797681 2005-04-25 09:26 Freshmeat -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Freshmeat.msf -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 1633701 2005-01-16 09:15 freshmeatold -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 freshmeatold.msf -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 2271 2005-02-20 07:25 gertcms -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 gertcms.msf -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 1495 2004-10-02 08:39 Gmail -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Gmail.msf -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 4657 2004-12-09 09:40 GriSoft -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 GriSoft.msf -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 80849 2005-03-18 18:06 Hallgren -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Hallgren.msf -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 19100 2005-04-20 16:38 Hjerteforeningen -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Hjerteforeningen.msf -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 5101 2004-09-21 13:17 Hostmaster -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Hostmaster.msf -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 7045 2004-08-28 07:09 HP -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 HP.msf -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 113941 2005-04-25 07:37 Hugo -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Hugo.msf -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 5572 2005-03-01 06:43 ICewm -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 ICewm.msf -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 7808 2005-04-26 15:55 Inbox -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 2161 2005-04-26 15:55 Inbox.msf -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 64899956 2005-02-24 17:27 indboxold It has not helped on all files/dirs ??? Erik

Felix Miata wrote:

Erik Jakobsen wrote:

...

It has not helped on all files/dirs ???

It will not shrink folders that have had no emails "deleted" from them.

Do you tell me, that if I just delete one email from a folder, and do a compact, it will shrink then ?. Erik Jakobsen

Randall R Schulz wrote:

Erik,

On Tuesday 26 April 2005 09:04, Erik Jakobsen wrote:

...

Felix Miata wrote:

...

Erik Jakobsen wrote:

...

It has not helped on all files/dirs ???

It will not shrink folders that have had no emails "deleted" from them.

Do you tell me, that if I just delete one email from a folder, and do a compact, it will shrink then ?.

Short answer: Yes.

Detailed anser: Yes.

...

Erik Jakobsen

Randall Schulz

That is to be understood. No doubt at all :-) Erik Jakobsen

Felix, On Tuesday 26 April 2005 10:19, Felix Miata wrote:

Erik Jakobsen wrote:

...

...

Do you tell me, that if I just delete one email from a folder, and do a compact, it will shrink then ?.

Not exactly. After you both delete mail from a folder and subsequently empty the trash, then compacting will shrink the original folder the email was deleted from.

Isn't the trash a separate folder (mail file)? I think it is and if so, then the original mailbox form which the message was deleted now has the space that message occupies marked as unused and it will indeed be reclaimed when that folder is compressed.

Felix Miata

Randall Schulz

On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 10:44 -0700, Randall R Schulz wrote:

Felix,

On Tuesday 26 April 2005 10:19, Felix Miata wrote:

...

Erik Jakobsen wrote:

...

...

Do you tell me, that if I just delete one email from a folder, and do a compact, it will shrink then ?.

Not exactly. After you both delete mail from a folder and subsequently empty the trash, then compacting will shrink the original folder the email was deleted from.

Isn't the trash a separate folder (mail file)? I think it is and if so, then the original mailbox form which the message was deleted now has the space that message occupies marked as unused and it will indeed be reclaimed when that folder is compressed.

Depends on the mail client. I think by default evolution will only mark the message as trash not actually move it there. There is a setting to hide deleted messages. -- Ken Schneider UNIX since 1989, linux since 1994, SuSE since 1998 "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the day they start making vacuum cleaners." -Ernst Jan Plugge

Randall R Schulz wrote:

snip

I think Mozilla is the same, but I don't use it for email these days.

snip.

What mailer are you using Randall ?

...

Ken Schneider

Randall Schulz

Erik Jakobsen

On Friday 29 April 2005 07:02, Randall R Schulz wrote:

KMail 1.8 from KDE 3.4 under SuSE Linux 9.3.

Thank you for your information

Randall Schulz

-- Erik Jakobsen

On Friday 29 April 2005 07:16, Randall R Schulz wrote:

Hi,

On Tuesday 26 April 2005 12:05, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

Ken,

...

In KMail when you "delete" a message, it is moved (actually, it's copied) to the trash folder and marked as deleted in the folder from which it was deleted (and subsequently hidden from view).

I should add that this obviously only applies when you use "mbox" mail storage. If you use "maildir," each message is in its own file. I don't know how it behaves in that case, since I've never used it.

...

...

Randall Schulz

Very good folks, and thanks. -- Erik Jakobsen

Erik, On Friday 29 April 2005 04:30, Erik Jakobsen wrote:

...

I have tested with importing mails from Mozilla mail to Kmail. I don't think its correct, as all the imported mails has the name MBOX as shown aon:

http://www.urbakken.dk/kmailimport.png

Is that due to the Kmail's dir's are maildir and Mozilla mails are MBOX or is it vice versa ?.

I remain confused. Now we're talking about importing mail from one application's mail storage format to another? Anyway, I've seen a variety of anomalous results when importing mail into KMail.

--

Erik Jakobsen

Randall Schulz

Erik, On Friday 29 April 2005 06:28, Erik Jakobsen wrote:

...

...

Anyway, I've seen a variety of anomalous results when importing mail into KMail.

Do you mean its not possible to do or what ?

No. It works, it just doesn't always work so well. The few times I've tried it I was getting pretty sizeable mailboxes from an Outlook Express user, and the results were spotty. One symptom I recall distinctly was that some of the imported messages appeared empty.

--

Erik Jakobsen

Randall Schulz

On April 29, 2005 9:35 am, Randall R Schulz wrote:

Erik,

On Friday 29 April 2005 06:28, Erik Jakobsen wrote:

...

...

...

Anyway, I've seen a variety of anomalous results when importing mail into KMail.

Have you tried passing the OE mail > moxilla mbox running on windows first then import it to kmail? I recall that eudora might also work as an intermediary.

On April Friday 2005 7:30 am, Erik Jakobsen wrote:

On Friday 29 April 2005 07:16, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

...

In KMail when you "delete" a message, it is moved (actually, it's copied) to the trash folder and marked as deleted in the folder from which it was deleted (and subsequently hidden from view).

I should add that this obviously only applies when you use "mbox" mail storage. If you use "maildir," each message is in its own file. I don't know how it behaves in that case, since I've never used it.

I have tested with importing mails from Mozilla mail to Kmail. I don't think its correct, as all the imported mails has the name MBOX as shown aon:

http://www.urbakken.dk/kmailimport.png

Is that due to the Kmail's dir's are maildir and Mozilla mails are MBOX or is it vice versa ?. Set kmail to use mbox .. IIRC unless you are using your older settings it is set to ¨maildir¨ rather than mbox in this release.. maybe has been for a while...

Anders??? You out there ?? Am I wrong here ??? ( I would really like to know, actually <Grins> ) j

--

Erik Jakobsen

On April Friday 2005 9:31 am, Erik Jakobsen wrote:

On Friday 29 April 2005 15:21, jfweber@bellsouth.net wrote: snip.

...

Set kmail to use mbox .. IIRC unless you are using your older settings it is set to ¨maildir¨ rather than mbox in this release.. maybe has been for a while...

Can I change a running Kmail to use mbox, and if I can how do I that ?.

Yup, at least I did it once <G> You do it in your settings/configuration item.. tho you may have to look carefully for the button to check wheee I found it. The very last section ( called ¨misc¨) has a selection that *by default message folders are *.... and you get to choose.. choose mbox and that *should* fix your problem ( fingers crossed... ) Tho if it doesn´t fix it you wont be any worse off than now...

...

Anders??? You out there ?? Am I wrong here ??? ( I would really like to know, actually <Grins> ) j

Maybe I meet Anders tonight, and can get the information from him. Hope you do... give him a virtual hug from me ;-)

Thanks a lot for your reply you are most welcome j

On Saturday 30 April 2005 03:40, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

Can I change a running Kmail to use mbox, and if I can how do I that?.

Not as such. You must commit to a mail storage format when you create a new folder it cannot be changed afterward. But you can always create a new folder in the desired format, copy all the messages from the old folder to that new folder, remove the old folder and rename the new one.

I understand. What mail storage format does Mozilla mail have. Necessary to know when importing Mozilla mails ? -- Erik Jakobsen

Randall R Schulz wrote:

Erik,

On Saturday 30 April 2005 01:06, Erik Jakobsen wrote:

...

On Saturday 30 April 2005 03:40, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

...

Can I change a running Kmail to use mbox, and if I can how do I that?.

Not as such. You must commit to a mail storage format when you create a new folder it cannot be changed afterward. But you can always create a new folder in the desired format, copy all the messages from the old folder to that new folder, remove the old folder and rename the new one.

I understand. What mail storage format does Mozilla mail have. Necessary to know when importing Mozilla mails ?

I'm not really sure, but in doing a Web search (ahem), I found this page: http://www.mozilla.org/support/thunderbird/faq. Go there and search for "kmail". Here's the paragraph in which it appears:

Ok for the web search hm.. . I'll try to look what to be found there.

"How do I import e-mail messages from kmail (Linux)?

"Make a new folder in kmail and name it inboxmbox. You'll see a dialogue in which you can save it as an mbox folder. Copy all posts in your kmail inbox folder to the new inboxmbox folder, then copy or move inboxmbox to the subfolder Mail/Local Folders in your profile folder. When you open Thunderbird you'll see the inboxmbox folder under Local Folders. Copy the messages into your Inbox folder if you like."

I believe the implication is that Firefox (and Mozilla) use mbox format.

But as I read what you wrote its about importing e-mail's from Kmail ??? What I want is the opposite way to Kmail from Mozilla mail. Maybe there's something about that on the url you mentioned. Thanks for the help -- Erik Jakobsen

Randall R Schulz wrote:

Erik,

On Saturday 30 April 2005 08:45, Erik Jakobsen wrote:

...

Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

...

"How do I import e-mail messages from kmail (Linux)?

"Make a new folder in kmail and name it inboxmbox. You'll see a dialogue in which you can save it as an mbox folder. Copy all posts in your kmail inbox folder to the new inboxmbox folder, then copy or move inboxmbox to the subfolder Mail/Local Folders in your profile folder. When you open Thunderbird you'll see the inboxmbox folder under Local Folders. Copy the messages into your Inbox folder if you like."

I believe the implication is that Firefox (and Mozilla) use mbox format.

But as I read what you wrote its about importing e-mail's from Kmail ??? What I want is the opposite way to Kmail from Mozilla mail. Maybe there's something about that on the url you mentioned.

Yes, but think about what was stated. You can directly access (no import processing required) a KMail mbox-formmatted mail folder (which is a single file, ignoring the index file) from Thunderbird (not Firefox, of course, as I mistakenly stated). All you have to do is put a copy of the KMail mbox file in the directory where Thunderbird keeps mail files.

Oh yes I see it now. I'll of course give it a try.

If Mozilla mail can directly access a KMail mail folder, there's a reasonable chance the reverse is true, too. But keep in mind that it does not follow strongly that this is possible, because there could be more flexibility regarding particular details of mailbox file formatting in one application's code than the other's.

Yes quite right. Thanks once more :-) -- Erik Jakobsen