Thieving posties
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Woody on 25 Jun 2010 19:11 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> Why do you imagine that you >> *need* 'proper computer data security'. I don't feel that I need it; > > I'm >> interested to know why you think you do. > > I'm interested to find out why you do not understand the obvious need > to > take basic data security precautions such as making backups, using a > Firewall, and not visiting dodgy Websites without protection, and so > on. Agreed on the backup statements etc, but on the original subject of a way of transferring files from one person to another as per the thread leading up to here, what does your requirements for security mean in that context, or were you just referring to the security of your computer when connecting to that service? -- Woody
From: Woody on 25 Jun 2010 19:26 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > And yes, with Mailsmith, each email is indeed stored as a separate file > - all inside one package so as not to be too messy. Yes, same as Mail, so that the contents can be indexed with spotlight. -- Woody www.alienrat.com
From: Rowland McDonnell on 25 Jun 2010 20:06 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: [snip] > Agreed on the backup statements etc, but on the original subject of a > way of transferring files from one person to another as per the thread > leading up to here, what does your requirements for security mean in > that context, or were you just referring to the security of your > computer when connecting to that service? The whole kit and caboodle, I suppose - it's just that if I'm going to trust my data to a way of sending it, I'd like to understand the ins and outs of the method first, what with computer data being so easy to subvert. At the moment, I'm just plain ignorant. Security covers the whole lot - making sure that the data you've got stays accessible by way of guarding against problems due to data carrier failure or computer failure etc. That `computer failure' business includes keeping the bad guys out however they pry. And then there's the other side of it, which is stopping the unauthorised from accessing my data - also involving keeping the bad guys out and things like not leaving DVDs of Martian bestiality pr0n on the Tube. I've probably missed something out somewhere, but I expect you get the idea. Did I really refer to Martian bestiality pr0n? Oh dear. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Rowland McDonnell on 25 Jun 2010 20:08 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > And yes, with Mailsmith, each email is indeed stored as a separate file > > - all inside one package so as not to be too messy. > > Yes, same as Mail, so that the contents can be indexed with spotlight. Same reason for Mailsmith doing it that way. Entertainingly, last time I let Spotlight have a go at indexing my mail, it just chewed up loads of CPU for weeks until I got sick of it and blocked email from Spotlight indexing. So much for /that/... Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Chris Ridd on 26 Jun 2010 04:16
On 2010-06-26 08:43:59 +0100, Sn!pe said: > Chris Ridd <chrisridd(a)mac.com> wrote: > > [...] > >> symlinks - uploads the original file, and updates when the original >> file is updated >> >> hardlinks - uploads the original file, stops updating (nlinks=1) when >> the original file is updated (obviously rewritten and renamed). >> >> So symlinks from the Dropbox folder to the original files are the way >> to go, at least for files written by TextEdit. > > Displaying my ignorance: could someone please explain to me > the difference between symlinks and hardlinks and their usage? A symlink, or symbolic link, is a special small file that contains the path and filename of another file on the system. When asked to open the symbolic link, all programs will automatically [1] follow that link and open the original file. If you move or rename the target file, opening the symlink will produce an error. If you delete the target file and replace it with a new file, opening the symlink will open that new file. Hard links are simpler. Unix systems distinguish between the contents of a file, and the file's location/name in some folder. That relationship is a link. Most files have one link. You can create additional links to a file's contents, which means you can have literally the same file appear in two or more different folders. Opening any of these files will access the same underlying file contents. You cannot "break" a hard link by renaming one of the files. Deleting one of the files will just reduce the number of links to the file contents. (When the link count goes to zero, the file contents are deleted.) Each hard link to a file must however be on the same disk, which is the main limitation to hard links. Symlinks don't have that problem because they're path and filename based. Except inside Time Machine backups, you can't create hard links to folders. You *can* create symlinks to folders. The Wikipedia article looks OK <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symlink> [1] some programs may need to not follow the link; that's possible too. -- Chris |