Majordomo-Workers: Re: Umask not set in 1.94

Majordomo-Workers
(November 1996)

Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject:	Re: Umask not set in 1.94
From:	Chan Wilson <cwilson @ slurp . neu . sgi . com>
Date:	Fri, 22 Nov 1996 17:08:52 +0100
To:	Dave Wolfe <david_wolfe @ risc . sps . mot . com>
Cc:	majordomo-workers @ greatcircle . com (Majordomo developer's mailing list), tibbs @ hpc . uh . edu (Jason L Tibbitts III)
In-reply-to:	Your message of "Wed, 20 Nov 1996 11:44:08 CST." <199611201744.LAA22356@miaow.risc.sps.mot.com>

> Can someone justify why the "umask(007);" line was removed from
> sample.cf in 1.94? It was there to set the default umask for all Mj

Mmmm, nope, not at a first glance.  It was removed back when I escaped
all the @ signs.

I've added it back in.

--Chan

References:

Umask not set in 1.94
From: Dave Wolfe <dwolfe@risc.sps.mot.com>

Indexed By Date	Previous:	Re: Load limits From: Dave Wolfe <dwolfe@risc.sps.mot.com>
Indexed By Date	Next:	test this 1.94.1 rollup patch From: Chan Wilson <cwilson@slurp.neu.sgi.com>
Indexed By Thread	Previous:	Umask not set in 1.94 From: Dave Wolfe <dwolfe@risc.sps.mot.com>
Indexed By Thread	Next:	Potential 'which' / 'who' security loophole in 1.94 From: Nick Perry <nick@aboard.co.uk>