Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID:	<3F301A46.9070206@attglobal.net>
Date:	Tue, 05 Aug 2003 13:57:42 -0700
From:	Doug VanLeuven <roamdad AT attglobal DOT net>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030401
X-Accept-Language:	en-us, en
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Controversial what if.... we disable ntsec by default again?
References:	<02f301c35b4a$8e792f40$017c883e AT starfruit> <3F2FB51D DOT 2090309 AT attglobal DOT net> <20030805163039 DOT GA3817 AT redhat DOT com>
In-Reply-To:	<20030805163039.GA3817@redhat.com>
X-MailScanner:	Found to be clean

Christopher Faylor wrote:

>On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 06:46:05AM -0700, Doug VanLeuven wrote:
>  
>
>>Why isn't ntsec a mount option?
>>    
>>
>
>The standard reason.
>  
>

Which is the standard reason?
1. It's that way because nobody has coded it yet.
2. It's that way because the core team analyzed it and believe it is 
best done the way it is.

-- 
Doug VanLeuven : 707-545-6945 (voice) 707-545-6945 (fax)
Programmer/Analyst, SCWA : doug AT scwa DOT ca DOT gov
Chief Engineer, USMM : roamdad AT attglobal DOT net



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -