think about what you said. you don't understand the auth model. glad to see that you are still replying to everything and generate 40% of the traffic on 9fans. i'm with maht. this is not a "i couldn't be bothered" blog. yes, this is not a love song...
brucee On Jan 29, 2008 10:35 AM, erik quanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon Jan 28 18:01:00 EST 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > without any agreed-upon or secure arbiter of groups which tracks > > > centralized > > > information, this does not seem like a good idea to me. > > > > `centralised' information? > > > > i assume you'd have to be hostowner to load it, so it's up to the > > host-owner process that loads it what it > > regards as `adequately reliable' data. on a cpu server, it can be > > consistent with the user names associated with > > processes on that system. that's not centralised though: it's a local > > convention. > > i don't mean coordiated outside our site. perhaps i didn't make that clear. > > what you're saying sounds like, say, putting some configuration in > /rc/bin/cpurc. > the problem is that this information needs to be updated across all cpu > servers > more often than everything is rebooted. > > perhaps a file on /srv/boot could be given to the fs which could be opened to > check > group permission? too cute? > > - erik >
