> i'm not sure. what does "complete filesystem semantics" mean? let me > rephrase.
honouring group and user permissions, instead of using a world-writable partition with everybody treated as "none". > the premise is that the local system, and thus i assume the local fs, has > no knowledge of the user. this task has been delegated to a foreign auth > server. so what are the mechanics of getting the local fs to treat an > unknown user as something other than none? i don't believe everything was thought-through very thoroughly before people became indifferent to the idea. one suggestion was to use "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" for figuring out "local" vs "remote" users (i.e., become "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" instead of "none"). > supposing this problem is solved, don't you need quotas or something > if you don't know who exactly to yell at for filling up the worm? access control lists? i'm afraid i don't know the answer and i'm certainly not prepared to dive into this any deeper. it's been quite a while :) i hope to have relayed the original idea: give "friendly users" some access to your resources.
