On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 09:33:30AM +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote: > On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 08:38:50AM +0200, Stefan Götz wrote: > > > Sorry for that, but Samba just can't afford to be called > > > insecure by default. > > > > Absolutely - and I do very much respect the reasons for > > that. So Linda and I are > > suggesting a non-default option or option value called something like > > "YesIWantToShootMyselfInTheFootAndWontComplainAboutItOnSlashdotSoTurnOnWideLinks" > > instead of reverting to an insecure default. In our usage > > scenarios, such a shot in the foot is something quite > > desirable and useful. > > If you asked me, I would support that. > > insecure wide links and unix extensions = yes > > or so. Now you have to convince Jeremy to also accept it :-)
Ok, I'm or with a "wide links = insecure" option, with the man page expressing the opinion that enabling it is insane :-). But I'm not spending the time to code it up (but will test and apply patches from people who do :-). Jeremy. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
