John, along these lines, would it be possible to fix the broken links on your articles on the techspedition site? or are those articles not ready yet? John Quarto-vonTivadar wrote: > I think it's worth waiting the extra few weeks until Hal's new stuff is > released. I found it significantly easier to understand than the what > was > proposed last summer. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ney Andr� de Mello Zunino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 10:33 PM > Subject: Re: Secure.cfm > > > John Beynon wrote: > > > As for Hal's proposal becoming part of the fusebox spec, it could > > happen but I think it's more likely to become a 'best practices' - I > > know he's got something new up his sleeve at the moment. Since > > everyone has their own stand point on security coming up with a > > 'standard fusebox' methodology would be a huge challenge. > > Understood. > > Anyway, assuming that I wish to follow Hal's proposal, is the > implementation of the code that should be responsible for traversing the > circuit path (reading the FBX_Permissions.cfm files and updating the > fusebox.permissions structure along the way) available somewhere or > would I have to write my own? > > > And yes, apart from hard coding your userpermissions, looks like > > you're on the right lines, > > > > There ya go, I answered all your questions, > > Thank you :) > > -- > Ney Andr� de Mello Zunino > Media and Technology Laboratory > Campus Computing Centre > United Nations University > > > > >
==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [email protected] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bUrFMa.bV0Kx9 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
