Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	Andrew DeFaria <Andrew AT DeFaria DOT com>
Subject:	Re: Permissions on .ssh/id_rsa
Date:	Thu, 18 Aug 2005 13:14:12 -0700
Lines:	39
Message-ID:	<de2q6l$tr1$1@sea.gmane.org>
References:	<20050817201613 DOT GA13524 AT SDF DOT LONESTAR DOT ORG> <4303DDEB DOT F45A3616 AT dessent DOT net> <20050818134424 DOT GA4219 AT SDF DOT LONESTAR DOT ORG> <de27im$sqh$1 AT sea DOT gmane DOT org> <20050818184816 DOT GA24529 AT SDF DOT LONESTAR DOT ORG> <de2mno$hkv$1 AT sea DOT gmane DOT org> <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 61 DOT 0508181520260 DOT 3902 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu> <de2o56$mdm$1 AT sea DOT gmane DOT org> <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 61 DOT 0508181548240 DOT 3902 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu>
Mime-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.5 (X11/20050711)
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.GSO.4.61.0508181548240.3902@slinky.cs.nyu.edu>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes

Igor Pechtchanski wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>
>> Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>>>
>>>> To me it's just not natural to think of having ntsec without 
>>>> smbntsec. I forget what, if any, issues might have been involved. I 
>>>> can't think of a situation where you'd want Cygwin to honor ntsec 
>>>> but not honor smbntsec...
>>>
>>> When the SMB server doesn't reflect the permissions correctly,
>>
>> IMHO then that problem should be corrected.
>
> Not always possible.

It may require effort but surely it's not impossible. My point is that 
what you describe is a "broken" situation (i.e. it's not right) and I 
don't think the default should be set for situations where things are 
not correct as they should be, rather the default should be set for 
things being correct, i.e. as they should be and probably more often are...

>>> or when the owner user on the remote end isn't accessible via 
>>> Windows (e.g., mounting a DFS filesystem via SMB).
>>
>> How often does that happen?
>
> Don't know. It did happen to me, hence my use of nosmbntsec...

Exactly. IMHO smbntsec should be by default on and for those rarer cases 
where the environment is broken or the uncommon situations where 
something like mounting DFS through SMB is used then the user can 
consciously turn it off. IOW defaults should be chosen for the common 
case - not the uncommon one... But hey, that's just my opinion...
-- 
Would a fly without wings be called a walk?


--
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 -