simo wrote:
On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 18:16 -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
Jeremy Allison wrote:
I didn't like re-enabling the feature as it re-introduces something
that was widely regarded as a security hole,
People widely regarded the earth as flat and ... well sometime
ago,
On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 09:11 -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
simo wrote:
On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 18:16 -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
Jeremy Allison wrote:
I didn't like re-enabling the feature as it re-introduces something
that was widely regarded as a security hole,
Jeremy Allison wrote:
We needed to make it impossible to configure Samba insecurely. At the
time this was proposed, it was posted to the list and no dissenting
voices were heard.
---
Not exactly true -- as soon as this feature was available for testing
in a downloadable package, there
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 03:37:11PM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
I would like to put forth a possible alternative for consideration
(perhaps a bit late in the game), though perhaps a goal for a release in
the near future. Better to say someting that be accused later of saying
nothing...
But what if we didn't need the option in the first place?
(i.e. the workaround code?)...
Wouldn't it make for a cleaner implementation to not add a hack on top
of a hack?
I'm a perfectionist -- just just a it'll do type...that's why I tend
to persist.
Though if you aren't interested, you
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
Jeremy Allison wrote:
I didn't like re-enabling the feature as it re-introduces something
that was widely regarded as a security hole,
People widely regarded the earth as flat and ... well sometime ago,
as in some areas, as only 6000 years old...
but recognised the need
some sites have
On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 18:16 -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
Jeremy Allison wrote:
I didn't like re-enabling the feature as it re-introduces something
that was widely regarded as a security hole,
People widely regarded the earth as flat and ... well sometime
ago,
as in some areas, as only
Hi, I discovered that it's not possible to run 'wide links' and 'unix
entensions' at the same time - there are source-level blockers in place
that will disable wide links and write a log entry. I traced this to
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7104 and
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 02:21:12PM +0200, umage wrote:
Hi, I discovered that it's not possible to run 'wide links' and
'unix entensions' at the same time - there are source-level blockers
in place that will disable wide links and write a log entry. I
traced this to
On 12. 9. 2011 19:21, Jeremy Allison wrote:
We needed to make it impossible to configure Samba insecurely.
At the time this was proposed, it was posted to the list and
no dissenting voices were heard.
Since then there have been a couple of people with the desire
to configure Samba in a
11 matches
Mail list logo
