Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , 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 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> 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 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/