Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Message-ID: <3F301A46.9070206@attglobal.net> Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 13:57:42 -0700 From: Doug VanLeuven 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@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Controversial what if.... we disable ntsec by default again? References: <02f301c35b4a$8e792f40$017c883e@starfruit> <3F2FB51D.2090309@attglobal.net> <20030805163039.GA3817@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20030805163039.GA3817@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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@scwa.ca.gov Chief Engineer, USMM : roamdad@attglobal.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/