Failure Analysis of Samba (4/23) with NT

[John Trostel]

On 03-May-2001 Herb Lewis wrote:
> David Collier-Brown wrote:
>> 
>> Jeremy Allison wrote:
>> > No, that's essentially correct. The reasoning behind the
>> > parameter is that an admin may want to set a restriction
>> > that group owners always have rw access for example, and
>> > not enforcing that when a "create with ACL" open is done
>> > would break that policy. With "acl ignore masks = False"
>> > then a create with ACL would have the restriction applied.
>> 
>>         Perhaps you might make it a positive statement,
>>         so I won't think that "on" is true and "off" is false?
>> 
>>         How about "restrict ACL with mask = true/false"
>> 
> 
> I like the idea of a positive rather than negative option.
> I'd prefer "acl use masks" 
> 
> herb

Sure, but _which_ masks?  As I said before, why should checking/changing the
ACL on an existing file be governed by the create mask?  I'm still dazed and
confused.... Maybe a cookie will help.

-- 
John M. Trostel
Linux OS Engineer
Connex
jtrostel at connex.com