A bug maybe; Write list access to Read only share; security = share?

[Gerald (Jerry) Carter]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

TAKAHASHI Motonobu wrote:

|> Possibly, but I think the design was originally
|> broken.  We should never be advertising user access control
|> with share mode security IMO.
|
| Currently this behavior is different from the document,
| that is why I think it's a bug.
|
|> Basically, this one is really low on my priority since
|> I would like to see people move away from security = share
|> anyways.
|
| I agree. So I wish the document will be updated.

That I agree with.  I'll look into it.  To which document
exactly are we referring?  If you can point me in the
right direction, I'll look at cleaning it up.






cheers, jerry
=====================================================================
Alleviating the pain of Windows(tm)      ------- http://www.samba.org
GnuPG Key                ----- http://www.plainjoe.org/gpg_public.asc
"I never saved anything for the swim back."     Ethan Hawk in Gattaca
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCAiCLIR7qMdg1EfYRAldGAKC4fVqN3oDXYc/43zvIpm5AfZfTeACfctGF
DNEQSPNyEjS5sf1lj/k3G1s=
=4QNl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----