Hash: SHA1

Albe wrote:

> Well, when i first installed samba without POSIX ACLs,
> it simply showed the classical rwx permissions of the
> owner, group and others as the corresponding permissions
> in the "allow" column of the security panel.
> I would suggest to consider ACLs if present, otherwise
> to show the classical permissions, which i think reflects
> the real behavior in linux.

Hmmm...but in your original post, you posted an ACL on
a directory. So what do you mean by no ACL present?
If you enable acls in smbd, smb.conf and when mounting
the fs, ACLs are present.

If you mean, no default named mask for the owner,
how can you tell between a file that has not had such
an ACE assigned and one that has had the ACE explicitly

Sorry, but what you are asking for is too ambigous. If
you want ACLs, you have to deal with the Windows security
model which distinguishes between an ACE that applies
to the folder itself and one that applies to any entries
within the folder. I don't see any way around this.

cheers, jerry
================================================== ===================
Alleviating the pain of Windows(tm) ------- http://www.samba.org
Centeris ----------- http://www.centeris.com
"There's an anonymous coward in all of us." --anonymous
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba