* Tomas Fasth
| PAM is good. The fact remains, it doesn't handle default umask.
If you use libpam-umask, it does.
--
Tollef Fog Heen,''`.
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' :
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alban browaeys skrev:
| In october you told:
|
|> Searching Google for "xsession umask" will give you some hints.
|>
|>
|>
|>> /etc/login.defs explicitly indicates that it is
|>> "Configuration control definitions for the login package",
|>> and many of
In october you told:
>Searching Google for "xsession umask" will give you some hints.
>>/etc/login.defs explicitly indicates that it is "Configuration
>> control definitions for the login package", and many of its
>> parameters are inapplicable to display managers, or already
>> implemented in p
In october you told that :
> environment variables, at least, are trivial to accomplish using the
> pam_env module. Properly setting a umask would call for something else
> yet.
in response to :
>> I don't think everything in /etc/login.defs is provided by PAM yet,
>> although I'm willing to be c
* Branden Robinson
| I'm not thrilled with it, but maybe you can make something useful out of
| that.
|
| Thanks again for the lightning-fast coding. :)
Thanks for the description; the package is now sitting in the NEW
queue. Sorry for taking a bit of time, I have been away on vacation.
--
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 09:41:45PM +0200, Tomas Fasth wrote:
> I have re-read your mail and I beg you for pardon. I was wrong.
Thanks. My anger dissipates with a wave of the hand. :)
> | And, by the way: X-No-CC: I subscribe to this list; do not CC me
> | on replies.
>
> I'm very sorry but I'm
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 09:43:33AM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> I wonder if filing a bug report against the offending MUA would be
> more efficient?
I think such bugs are best filed by those who actually use the MUA in
question (I use Mutt, which already respects M-C-T and M-F-T).
After all,
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 10:57:24AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Branden Robinson
>
> | On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 12:06:36PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> | > environment variables, at least, are trivial to accomplish using the
> | > pam_env module. Properly setting a umask would call for som
* Tomas Fasth
| Branden Robinson wrote:
| | Would pam_umask.so be a worthwhile exercise for some enterprising
| | person?
|
| May I suggest pam_logindefs.so?
No, that's a bad idea for a variety of reasons, for instance that we
already have pam_limits and as pam modules often are security-critic
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Langasek wrote:
| On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 02:06:16AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
|> On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 12:06:36PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
|>> environment variables, at least, are trivial to accomplish
|>> using the pam_env module. Pr
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 02:06:16AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 12:06:36PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > environment variables, at least, are trivial to accomplish using the
> > pam_env module. Properly setting a umask would call for something else
> > yet.
> Would
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Branden Robinson wrote:
| On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 12:06:36PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
|
|> environment variables, at least, are trivial to accomplish
|> using the pam_env module. Properly setting a umask would call
|> for something else yet.
|
| Wo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Branden,
Branden Robinson wrote:
| On Sat, Oct 16, 2004 at 01:28:31PM +0200, Tomas Fasth wrote:
|
|> What I don't understand is why you think the umask preference
|> should be applied differently depending on the type of
|> interface the user choo
* Branden Robinson
| On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 12:06:36PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
| > environment variables, at least, are trivial to accomplish using the
| > pam_env module. Properly setting a umask would call for something else
| > yet.
|
| Would pam_umask.so be a worthwhile exercise for s
Branden Robinson writes:
When I see complaints like these
> And, by the way:
> X-No-CC: I subscribe to this list; do not CC me on replies.
>
> Please get an MUA that respects Mail-Copies-To:.
I wonder if filing a bug report against the offending MUA would be
more efficient? In this case,
On Sat, Oct 16, 2004 at 01:28:31PM +0200, Tomas Fasth wrote:
> However, umask is not an ordinary software configuration property,
> it's a process property initially inherited from init which, by the
> way, set it to 022 (I just checked the source of sysvinit in unstable).
Yes, we know that.
[...
On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 12:06:36PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> environment variables, at least, are trivial to accomplish using the
> pam_env module. Properly setting a umask would call for something else
> yet.
Would pam_umask.so be a worthwhile exercise for some enterprising person?
I someh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Branden Robinson wrote:
| On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 12:14:58AM +0200, Tomas Fasth wrote:
[...]
|> I believe that /etc/login.defs _is_ the right place to define
|> the default umask property.
|
| It feels wrong to me to make display managers selectively pa
On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 01:23:40PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 01:19:59AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 12:14:58AM +0200, Tomas Fasth wrote:
> > > Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > >/etc/login.defs explicitly indicates that it is "Configuration
> >
On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 01:19:59AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 12:14:58AM +0200, Tomas Fasth wrote:
> > Branden Robinson wrote:
> > >/etc/login.defs explicitly indicates that it is "Configuration
> > >control definitions for the login package", and many of its
> > >para
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 12:14:58AM +0200, Tomas Fasth wrote:
> Branden Robinson wrote:
> >/etc/login.defs explicitly indicates that it is "Configuration
> >control definitions for the login package", and many of its
> >parameters are inapplicable to display managers, or already
> >implemented in pa
At Thu, 14 Oct 2004 00:14:58 +0200,
Tomas Fasth wrote:
> > /etc/login.defs explicitly indicates that it is "Configuration
> > control definitions for the login package", and many of its
> > parameters are inapplicable to display managers, or already
> > implemented in parallel (e.g., how long do wa
Branden Robinson wrote:
[Redirecting to debian-devel; followups set.]
On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 02:29:32PM +0200, Wouter Hanegraaff
wrote:
Hi,
After a fresh sarge install, I'm having problems with umask
settings. In /etc/login.defs I set umask to 002, and that works
for logging in on the console or r
[Redirecting to debian-devel; followups set.]
On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 02:29:32PM +0200, Wouter Hanegraaff wrote:
> Hi,
>
> After a fresh sarge install, I'm having problems with umask settings. In
> /etc/login.defs I set umask to 002, and that works for logging in on the
> console or remote via ss
24 matches
Mail list logo
