DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:from:to:subject:date:message-id:references
	:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding
	:mime-version; q=dns; s=default; b=Y6zynJ1NqWEet4Tu0XXZBRdPx81kn
	qMaqj8xZaw1W6C0rm2s/+WD7josDRqvpFrt41g4wNywLr3JDLknRorHOyxXSSlFF
	/cAmVKdw/cZkCqL2UK4NFTVgny1FbuHqnTqGWI15JQbD+arJBrT1/LtwFSPWo1Lg
	93AgskdVzvI3gY=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From: "Habermann, Dave (DA)" <DAHabermann AT dow DOT com>
To: "cygwin AT cygwin DOT com" <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: RE: [ANNOUNCEMENT] TEST RELEASE: Cygwin 1.7.33-0.1
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 13:35:03 +0000
Message-ID: <C9D37D92E903B347A31B9CF82643BA28072F9229@046-CH1MPN1-043.046d.mgd.msft.net>
References: <announce DOT 20141022092323 DOT GH32374 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
In-Reply-To: <announce.20141022092323.GH32374@calimero.vinschen.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: dow.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Read through https://cygwin.com/preliminary-ntsec.html and in general found it to be quite useful.  I'm hoping to do some testing perhaps later this week or early next.  I have a couple of questions:

1) Any thoughts about the rough timing of this "going live"?

2) The documentation says (as I read it): Well-known/builtin accounts named as in Windows, then (for domain member) "Local machine accounts of a domain member machine get a Cygwin user name the same way as accounts from another domain: The local machine name gets prepended".  As I read this, cyg_serv account (under which I currently run SSHD) would now have a new name MYMACHINE+cyg_serv.  Am I reading this correctly?  Is there some reconfiguration I'll need to do to get SSHD to run properly?

3) I also read "Cygwin implements the Solaris API to access Windows ACLs in a Unixy way" (although your email says "Revamp Solaris ACL implementation to more closely work like POSIX ACLs are supposed to work").  So is it Solaris or is it POSIX, and if Solaris then I wonder why since it seems that everywhere else you've tried to be as POSIX as possible.

Thanks for all your hard work on this, I will certainly be one of the benefactors (12 Mb group file, takes hours to refresh so not done since this time last year).

Dave