On Dec 7, 2007 12:44 PM, Michael MacIsaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > silly double authentication schemes that don't do anything > But Rob implies this *doesn't* work? > > > > Try adding an explicit COUPLE *after* the GRANT. > And Phil implies it *can* work? > > Now I'm confused.
It was the other way around, but we work for the same boss so that's ok... ;-) Phil pointed out why this does not work. Since the COUPLE is implied by defining the virtual NIC, it requires the GRANT to be done first. As Phil suggests, when you put another COUPLE after the GRANT in the directory, it should work... When I responded, I had overlooked that... Many of us feel that authorisation through the CP directory should be enough, and should not require an additional GRANT (because those permissions are handed out by the same people). Unfortunately Alan decided otherdumb since he used the wrong analogy. For a moment I thought putting the GRANT in the directory entry was a very interesting way to protest against this silly design, but having to put the COUPLE there too makes it not very elegant, to say the least. -Rob
