Re: Saving attachments with a leading dot

["Jochen Küpper" <jochen=W2i0oK7yYu0+t3nig+EZI7NAH6kLmebB@public.gmane.org>]

On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:07:31 -0400 Ted Zlatanov wrote:

Ted> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, harder=YSGFQ8SKJZVDPfheJLI6IQ@public.gmane.org wrote:

>> Jochen Küpper <jochen=W2i0oK7yYu0+t3nig+EZI7NAH6kLmebB@public.gmane.org> writes:
>> 
>>> And what is up with filesystems that use different mechanisms or
>>> don't have them, i.e. AFS, FAT based stuff, ... ? Should Gnus even
>>> care what filesystem the file is written too? (In the spirit of
>>> this discussion, it has to.)
>> 
>> Windows doesn't have an executable bit, right?

Ted> No, but it does have some attributes (none related to this).

Cygwin does have Unix file permissions, for example. I am not sure
*that* works on FAT?

On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:10:42 -0400 Ted Zlatanov wrote:

Ted> I'm saying that's not something Emacs supports right now. The
Ted> shell should handle it, I think. In any case, I don't think an
Ted> attachment should ever be saved with permissions other than 0600,
Ted> 0640, or 0644.

At least 444 is perfectly valid, and some people also like 664 / 666
for most of their files...

Ted> I think Gnus should try to give the file proper permissions, but
Ted> it shouldn't lose sleep over it. Sometimes it's not possible.

+1

Greetings,
Jochen
-- 
Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit                http://www.Jochen-Kuepper.de
    Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité                GnuPG key: CC1B0B4D
        (Part 3 you find in my messages before fall 2003.)