Hi. Have just installed SuSE 9.3. Installed Mozilla Mailer, and have the Alertmessage shown on: http://www.urbakken.dk/alert.png. I have copied my Mozilla Mailers's mailcontent from SuSE 9.2. I think it is a permission error, but what error ?. Here is the content of the directory: erik@lajka3:~/.mozilla/default/dfiph4je.slt/Mail> ls -Al urbakken.dk/ total 249963 -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 138572 2005-02-25 11:13 Aase -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Aase.msf -r--r--r-- 1 erik users 40437 2005-04-18 06:39 aleo -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 aleo.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 3839 2005-04-14 06:52 Anders -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Anders.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 5001 2005-02-22 10:00 BilkaMusik -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 BilkaMusik.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 1629 2005-01-10 08:54 Billigmedien -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Billigmedien.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 25574 2005-03-13 10:55 BootDisk -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 BootDisk.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 12153 2005-02-24 17:25 CAcert -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 CAcert.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 49468 2004-10-29 05:54 CC -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 CC.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 21494 2004-09-05 16:26 Cees -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Cees.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 5542 2004-09-26 07:29 Christian -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Christian.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 3211 2005-03-20 06:11 CoffeCup -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 CoffeCup.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 5895 2004-12-14 20:25 ComputerCity -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 ComputerCity.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 14600 2004-09-02 18:32 Creative -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Creative.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 147967 2005-01-11 09:37 Dazuko -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Dazuko.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 118387 2004-11-03 09:23 dazukoold -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 dazukoold.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 16865608 2004-12-25 17:42 Debian -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Debian.msf -r--r--r-- 1 erik users 6870 2005-04-19 16:43 debian-user-danish -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 debian-user-danish.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 216057 2004-09-22 16:33 DNS -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 DNS.msf -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 5312 2004-10-02 18:57 draftsold -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 draftsold.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 9237 2004-12-09 15:42 DriverGuide -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 DriverGuide.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 271140 2005-04-17 19:49 Egon -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Egon.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 3765 2005-03-28 07:57 Emgo -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Emgo.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 131205 2005-04-15 09:23 ErikAstro -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 ErikAstro.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 13276 2004-08-27 14:51 eWire -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 eWire.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 76429 2005-01-03 17:26 FBB -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 FBB.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 5184 2005-03-03 07:52 Fedoraforum -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Fedoraforum.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 0 2004-11-12 05:21 filterlog.html -r--r--r-- 1 erik users 21333 2005-04-25 06:27 Forbrugerliv -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Forbrugerliv.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 128150 2005-03-21 05:23 Force -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Force.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 3797681 2005-04-25 09:26 Freshmeat -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Freshmeat.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 1633701 2005-01-16 09:15 freshmeatold -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 freshmeatold.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 2271 2005-02-20 07:25 gertcms -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 gertcms.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 1495 2004-10-02 08:39 Gmail -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Gmail.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 4657 2004-12-09 09:40 GriSoft -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 GriSoft.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 80849 2005-03-18 18:06 Hallgren -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Hallgren.msf -r--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 -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 5101 2004-09-21 13:17 Hostmaster -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Hostmaster.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 7045 2004-08-28 07:09 HP -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 HP.msf -r--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 -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 5572 2005-03-01 06:43 ICewm -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 ICewm.msf -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 -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 64899956 2005-02-24 17:27 indboxold -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 indboxold.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 1864 2004-11-16 10:03 InkClub -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 InkClub.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 3115 2005-01-08 11:29 IonoProbe -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 IonoProbe.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 1070415 2005-03-16 11:09 Jan Erik -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Jan Erik.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 2396196 2005-01-24 09:13 janerikold -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 janerikold.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 60563 2005-03-13 08:57 Javaproblem -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Javaproblem.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 20976 2004-09-18 15:13 Joe -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Joe.msf -r--r--r-- 1 erik users 15135 2005-04-12 06:57 John Andersen -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 John Andersen.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 3079 2005-02-03 06:59 KajOZ3JK -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 KajOZ3JK.msf -r--r--r-- 1 erik users 171675 2005-04-14 09:19 KarinADSL -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 KarinADSL.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 30102 2005-03-06 13:42 KD -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 2398845 2005-04-25 14:07 KDE -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 KDE.msf -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 KD.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 13321 2004-11-19 05:56 Kenneth -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Kenneth.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 3877 2005-03-10 06:56 Lavasoft -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Lavasoft.msf -r--r--r-- 1 erik users 7919 2005-04-24 17:03 Leif -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Leif.msf -r--r--r-- 1 erik users 35362 2005-04-15 17:56 Leo -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Leo.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 12775 2004-11-22 16:36 Lifetranslator -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Lifetranslator.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 2526 2004-08-29 11:25 linux-hams -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 linux-hams.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 4112 2004-11-18 09:00 Linuxpusher -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Linuxpusher.msf -r--r--r-- 1 erik users 4841 2005-04-21 20:06 Linuxshoppen -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Linuxshoppen.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 5048 2004-12-04 11:43 Mambo -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Mambo.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 15567 2004-11-03 07:11 MamboPortal -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 MamboPortal.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 1686525 2004-11-11 14:25 Manni -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Manni.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 33822 2005-03-15 06:50 mckopiering -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 mckopiering.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 4193779 2005-04-19 16:52 Min -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 75820 2005-03-28 07:18 MinMotion -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 MinMotion.msf -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Min.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 4391922 2005-04-25 05:52 Motion -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Motion.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 858586 2004-10-22 11:32 MrMunson -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 MrMunson.msf -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 25 2005-04-26 12:22 msgFilterRules.dat -r--r--r-- 1 erik users 273713 2005-04-25 09:17 Mutt -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Mutt.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 2326 2004-10-25 20:33 myPHPNuke -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 myPHPNuke.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 16147 2004-09-29 08:11 MySQL -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 MySQL.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 4710 2005-02-24 16:15 NTP -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 NTP.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 278256 2004-10-29 10:36 OZ2LW -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 OZ2LW.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 2424 2005-03-15 06:50 oz2oe -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 oz2oe.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 1554026 2004-09-10 19:33 Pablo -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Pablo.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 8021 2005-02-05 17:11 PayPal -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 PayPal.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 175667 2005-03-18 17:53 Pete -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Pete.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 772977 2004-10-06 04:08 PmWiki -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 PmWiki.msf -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 61 2005-04-26 13:02 popstate.dat -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 8647 2005-03-18 18:06 PostDanmark -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 PostDanmark.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 8667 2004-10-05 08:43 PrintKeyPro -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 PrintKeyPro.msf -r--r--r-- 1 erik users 151764 2005-04-13 19:10 Procmail -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Procmail.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 15076 2004-09-09 10:38 rart -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 rart.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 6139 2005-02-19 09:50 RealKredit DK -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 RealKredit DK.msf -r--r--r-- 1 erik users 13451 2005-03-25 10:02 RicharBoss -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 RicharBoss.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 5856 2004-09-16 17:29 risesp -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 risesp.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 16927 2005-02-17 16:11 RKD -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 RKD.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 14813 2005-03-14 21:47 Sam -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Sam.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 17297062 2005-03-12 16:02 sendt -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 sendt.msf -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:22 Sent -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:22 Sent.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 2180170 2005-02-22 09:59 SHG -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 SHG.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 777242 2004-10-05 21:28 shgold -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 shgold.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 2923 2005-02-19 17:56 Skip -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Skip.msf -r--r--r-- 1 erik users 41996 2005-04-19 19:57 SpamfighterPro -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 SpamfighterPro.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 4820 2005-02-28 07:16 Sparekassen -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Sparekassen.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 9123 2005-03-13 14:09 SSLUG -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 SSLUG.msf -r--r--r-- 1 erik users 57319 2005-03-28 07:11 StreamingRadio -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 StreamingRadio.msf -r--r--r-- 1 erik users 2073 2005-04-13 06:31 SunSite -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 SunSite.msf -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 -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 suse1.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 1322 2004-09-04 14:18 SuSEbuissnes -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 SuSEbuissnes.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 1001214 2004-12-20 07:07 Suse-Laptop -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Suse-Laptop.msf -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 2788199 2005-04-26 13:00 SuSE.msf -r--r--r-- 1 erik users 18009 2005-03-24 19:05 SuSEsupport -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 SuSEsupport.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 91110 2005-03-23 18:18 TDC -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 8990 2005-02-03 15:06 TDC-Hastighedstest -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 TDC-Hastighedstest.msf -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 TDC.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 4766 2004-10-04 16:14 Team-Helse -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Team-Helse.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 427752 2004-11-02 15:55 tele -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 tele.msf -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:22 Templates -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:22 Templates.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 2726 2005-02-19 15:36 TM-V7EDK -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 TM-V7EDK.msf -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-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 251344 2005-01-27 12:57 Towertalk.msf -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 TowerTalk.msf -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 244013 2005-04-26 12:57 Trash -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:57 Trash.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 2428 2004-09-23 08:20 TSW -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 TSW.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 53371 2005-03-25 08:29 Tullemus -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Tullemus.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 52822 2005-04-18 08:43 VMware -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 VMware.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 79203 2004-11-17 15:56 Webcam -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Webcam.msf -r--r--r-- 1 erik users 5745 2005-04-12 20:26 WhiteHat -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 WhiteHat.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 4942 2004-09-19 17:31 WHW -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 WHW.msf -r--r--r-- 1 erik users 1119416 2005-04-25 14:15 Wine -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Wine.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 19813 2005-02-25 20:37 wxtoimg -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 wxtoimg.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 46693 2004-09-02 19:57 xast -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 1924707 2005-01-27 12:57 Xastir -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Xastir.msf -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 xast.msf -r-xr-xr-x 1 erik users 289764 2005-01-18 13:21 Xfbb -rw-r--r-- 1 erik users 0 2005-04-26 12:56 Xfbb.msf Erik Jakobsen
Erik Jakobsen wrote:
Have just installed SuSE 9.3. Installed Mozilla Mailer, and have the Alertmessage shown on:
I have copied my Mozilla Mailers's mailcontent from SuSE 9.2.
Did you do an intermediate copy to a FAT32 or NTFS partition or to a floppy or other removable media?
I think it is a permission error, but what error ?.
Here is the content of the directory:
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. -- "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 08:42 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
Erik Jakobsen wrote:
Have just installed SuSE 9.3. Installed Mozilla Mailer, and have the Alertmessage shown on:
I have copied my Mozilla Mailers's mailcontent from SuSE 9.2.
Did you do an intermediate copy to a FAT32 or NTFS partition or to a floppy or other removable media?
I think it is a permission error, but what error ?.
Here is the content of the directory:
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).
-- 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 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
Hi, On Tuesday 26 April 2005 06:14, 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).
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/
% 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/stzvnglp.slt/
Those directories are protected by the inaccessibility of directories higher up in the hierarchy.
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. 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$'s motto not linux's. -- Ken Schneider UNIX since 1989, linux since 1994, SuSE since 1998 "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the day they start making vacuum cleaners." -Ernst Jan Plugge
Ken, On Tuesday 26 April 2005 07:06, Ken Schneider wrote:
On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 06:22 -0700, Randall R Schulz wrote:
Hi,
I see my language was a bit ambiguous...
Witness:
Add this example:
% ll -d ~/.mozilla drwx------ 6 rschulz users 112 2005-02-25 14:47 /home/rschulz/.mozilla/
Try this:
The mailbox directories whose permissions include group and world read are protected by the inaccessibility of directories higher up in the hierarchy.
Now, if those directories had world execute bits _and_ someone knew the profile directory name (the funky "stzvnglp.slt" in my case), then they could get at work-readable files within.
And this:
Now, if the ~/.mozilla, ~/.mozilla/defualt and ~/.mozilla/default/stzvnglp.slt/ all had world execute permissions set _and_ someone knew the profile directory name (the funky "stzvnglp.slt" in my case), then they could get at those world-readable mailbox directories and files within.
But why have perms to files that someone -might- be able to guess at.
Read what I wrote. You'd have to enable execute permissions in all those leading directories for that to work. If you enabled execute _and_ read on those directories, then people could simply look at the directories and access those mail files. But by all means, be as paranoid as you want. But you're much better off understanding how things work than applying some blanket "solution."
Another strange one is look at the perms in /home. I can cd to -any- login home dir which -should- not be possible. Seems like someone really screwed up with that one. Do ll -a in someone's home dir and see how many files you have read access to. -No one- but the owner and root should have any access to their files. I thought "security through obscurity" was M$'s motto not linux's.
Whether or not that -should- not be possible depends on what your machine is used by and whom it is used by. My system is accessible only to a few trusted friends and coworkers, and I _want_ them to be able to access all my files and vice versa.
Ken Schneider
Randall Schulz
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
Ken Schneider wrote:
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.
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. Erik Jakobsen
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/
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
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
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
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
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
Randall R Schulz wrote: 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. -- ======================================================================== Hylton Conacher - Linux user # 229959 at http://counter.li.org Currently using SuSE 9.0 Professional with KDE 3.1 ========================================================================
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
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
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
Greg Wallace wrote:
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). --
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
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 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.
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
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------ -- 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 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
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 ?. First, umask is a shell builtin. You can use symbolic notation when you set your umask: For instance: umask u=rwx,g=rx,o=rx is equivalent to: umask 0022 Remember umask is in Octal bits,
On Tuesday 26 April 2005 1:37 pm, Erik Jakobsen wrote:
the first 3 refer to user, second 3 to group, third to others.
0022 means that when creating a file, the rw bits will be turned on for the
user field, read for both others and group.
The execute bits come into play when creating directories.
--
Jerry Feldman
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/
Felix Miata wrote:
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
Hi Felix. Now I have looked at the url above. What is new here thinking on the thread on SLE ?. Erik Jakobsen
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
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. It is certainly conventional to use 0666 for plain files and 0777 for directories and executable files, but it need not be so.
...
Ken Schneider
Randall Schulz
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
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 ? Laurent Renard
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
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 ?
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
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 ;)
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
Le mercredi 27 avril 2005 à 11:49 -0400, Ken Schneider a écrit :
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
ok : excuse me ;) Laurent
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
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. Greg Wallace
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
Ok, remove the first 0 and you get octal (you need at least 3 bits to get to 8). The answer is the same. Now I'll but out and let you continue your discussion. Sorry to have intruded. Corrected--
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=000 000 000, 777= 111 111 111, and 022=000 010 010? Then umask 022 = 111 111 111 under a mask of 000 010 010 = 111 101 101 = 755? I believe this is what Anders Johansson was saying with his 4/26/2005 @ 11:19 AM post.
Yours truly, Greg Wallace 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 -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
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:
On Tuesday 26 April 2005 08:18, Felix Miata wrote:
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.
Like I said, check. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=235797 shows that for bookmarks.html Moz moves the old file, writes a new one, then deletes the old one. I think this is the customary Moz behavior for its other user data files as well. -- "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:
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
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.
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.
Erik Jakobsen
Randall Schulz
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
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. -- "Love your neighbor as yourself." Matthew 22:39 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/
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
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. -- "Love your neighbor as yourself." Matthew 22:39 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/
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
Erik Jakobsen wrote:
It has not helped on all files/dirs ???
It will not shrink folders that have had no emails "deleted" from them. -- "Love your neighbor as yourself." Matthew 22:39 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/
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
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
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
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 ?.
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. -- "Love your neighbor as yourself." Matthew 22:39 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/
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
Randall R Schulz wrote:
On Tuesday 26 April 2005 10:19, Felix Miata wrote:
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.
NAICT you're describing what I wrote (same difference == no difference == disk space consumed by mail folders goes up when you "delete", and down when you compact). -- "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 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
Ken, On Tuesday 26 April 2005 11:32, Ken Schneider wrote:
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.
I thought we were talking about Mozilla? 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 think Mozilla is the same, but I don't use it for email these days. So without a doubt for KMail and to the best of my knowledge for Mozilla mail, once you've delete a message from a given folder, compacting that folder will recover the space, regardless of whether the copy placed in the trash folder is still there or the trash has been emptied. The trash is a separate folder, basically.
Ken Schneider
Randall Schulz
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
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
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.
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 ?. -- 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
On Friday 29 April 2005 15:17, Randall R Schulz wrote:
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?
I understand your confusion. So am I too. What I wonder on is if the Mozilla mails are imported correct to Kmail. I doubt it as they are saved as MBOX's. Maybe that's normal. Then I don't like normal.
Anyway, I've seen a variety of anomalous results when importing mail into KMail.
Do you mean its not possible to do or what ? -- Erik Jakobsen
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 Friday 29 April 2005 15:35, Randall R Schulz wrote: snip.
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.
Ok Randall, I'll carry on trying this and that -- Erik Jakobsen
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 Friday 29 April 2005 17:21, Mike wrote:
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.
Do you mean if I have tried passing Outlook Express > mozilla box ?. If so, I can say no, as I don't use OE. Years ago I imported mails from Pegasus Mailer to Kmail, but I'm not running Pegasus anylonger. Nor do I use eudora. Is there anything I have misunderstood here, then please tell me it. Thanks ! -- Erik Jakobsen
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 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 ?.
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. Thanks a lot for your reply -- 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
Erik, On Friday 29 April 2005 06:31, 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?.
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.
Erik Jakobsen
Randall Schulz
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
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: "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.
-- Erik Jakobsen
Randall Schulz
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
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. 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.
Erik Jakobsen
Randall Schulz
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
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.
Felix Miata
Randall Schulz
Hi friends. I'll reply to your asnwers tomorrow. Erik Jakobsen
participants (13)
-
Anders Johansson
-
Brad Bendily
-
Erik Jakobsen
-
Felix Miata
-
Greg Wallace
-
Hylton Conacher (ZR1HPC)
-
Jerry Feldman
-
jfweber@bellsouth.net
-
Jul
-
Ken Schneider
-
Laurent Renard
-
Mike
-
Randall R Schulz