[Evolution] Re: [Evolution-hackers] File permissions overwritten by Evo

[Jerome Warnier <jwarnier bxlug be>]

Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:

> moving to the user list (since that's where this belongs).
>  
If it is configurable, yes, but otherwise no.

> Can you be more descriptive? I'm not sure what you mean...
>  
We are using Evolution (1.0.5 on Debian Woody) as email client.
It is working really fine now except this issue...
When we try to save attachments to disk, no matter where, and no matter 
which UMASK is used, the file permissions are always set to 0600.
Evolution is the only one user application I've ever seen that does that.

Playing around with FAM to circumvent this rapidly, we found limitations 
in FAM that makes it unusable for us.
We got further, using directly "dnotify" and found that Evo is creating 
the file and changing his permissions immediately after.
Now our problem is "solved" but I can't see any uglier hack (in fact I 
do, but I didn't even think about using it ;-) ).

Evolution is a fairly big piece of software, and we are not too prepared 
to search in it to disable this and rebuild a custom version for our own 
use.

I understand that, for security reasons, you decided to do this, but I 
think it should be configurable at least, if not disabled compeletely 
from future versions because of not being compliant to "ancestral" UNIX 
way of doing things.

Thanks for your help.
An again, Evo is a great, great piece of software!
Good job!

> Jeff
>
> On Thu, 2002-10-24 at 18:31, Jerome Warnier wrote:
>  
>
> > Could someone explain why Evolution is making strange things about file
> > permission when saving attachments?
> >
> > I'm UNIX administrator, not developper, and I really don't understand
> > why Evolution is doing differently than any other single application?
> >
> > Maybe there is some way to configure it to not overwrite standard umask
> > settings?
> > We have implemented a solution for this strange behaviour using dnotify
> > in the kernel (after failing doing it with FAM), but it would be far
> > better if Evo was at least configurable.
> >
> > Thanks and good work, guys!
> >
> >