Use of the information contained in this unapproved document is at your own risk
.Last update: 20 April,2001
1003.2-92 #11
Class: The unaddressed issue
The standard does not address this issue, and as such no conformance
distinction can be made between alternative implementations based on this.
This is being referred to the Sponsors of the standard for clarifying
wording in the next amendment.
This response will be incorporated in an IEEE interpretations
publication, and will be also made available on-line on the IEEE
SPAsystem.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Interpretation Number: (to be assigned by the IEEE)
Topic: mailx
Relevant Sections: 4.40.7
Interpretation Request: (Defect Report)
-----------------------
In Section 4.40.7 - Extended Description {of mailx}, the
standard states the order in which mailx initialization
occurs:
At startup time, mailx shall take the following
steps in sequence:
(1) Establish all variables at their stated
default values.
(2) Process command-line options, overriding
corresponding default values.
(3) Import any of the DEAD, EDITOR, MBOX,
LISTER, PAGER, SHELL, or VISUAL
variables that are present in the
environment, overriding the
corresponding default values.
(4) Read mailx commands from an unspecified
system startup-file, unless the -n
option is given, to initialize any
internal mailx variables and aliases.
(5) Process the startup file of mailx
commands named in the user MAILRC
variable.
[Draft 12 of IEEE Std 1003.2-1992 (July 1992), p. 362, lines
6429-6439]
The standard does not indicate when mailboxes are read in
this sequence. It is reasonable to assume that the standard
intends to describe historical mailx operation unless it
explicitly distinguishes itself. Can we interpret the
standard's quiescence on the matter as implying the
historical behavior? The behaviour is as above, with the
following steps added:
(4a) Read the system mailbox if in read mode and the -f
option is not specified.
(6) Read the mailbox specified with the -f option.
IEEE Interpretation for 1003.2-1992
-----------------------------------
The standard does not address this issue, allowing
an implementation to process unspecified actions in any order.
Concern over the specification in this area has been
forwarded to the Sponsors of the standard.
Rationale for Interpretation:
-----------------------------
None.
_____________________________________________________________________________