On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 04:28:43PM -0700, Linda W wrote: > > I don't think you felt good about adding the option, but assuaged > yourself with > naming it something belligerent to users rather than descriptively > and neutrally, > (something I don't think appropriate in a user interface of the sort > samba presents), > which really -- did that make you feel 'ok' with adding the option?
I didn't like re-enabling the feature as it re-introduces something that was widely regarded as a security hole, but recognised the need some sites have to enable it without patching the code. So naming it "allow insecure widelinks" is the best solution IMHO. That way people who are experimenting won't turn it on by accident and blame us (and yes, things like that *do* happen), but people who need it can do so happily. smb.conf is not a user interface, it's a configuration file. It's ok to have ugly options we don't recommend people use (as Volker said, you can set "guest user = root" if you really want to :-). > If not, I didn't win. I feel that I failed to communicate with you. "What we have here is a failure to communicate..." :-) :-). (name that movie ! :-). I'm just fed up of discussing it. As you are one of the sites who vociferously requested this option back in the code (even to the extent of opening a bug and writing a patch) then let's just leave things as they are. I won't respond again on this topic, I have far too many other things to do. Jeremy -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
