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.
Am i wrong?
albe
Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Albe wrote:
Thank you very much.
I think though that this is very misleading for the
casual windows user and the behavior should be as much
as possible pertinent or understandable.
It is inuitive once you understand it, but perhaps not
well documented. Unless of course, you have a suggestion
for a better way to map posix acls onto Windows security
descriptors?
cheers, jerry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDu//QIR7qMdg1EfYRAvizAJ9p+vlci0XgwQwDMrdUgogBAH2cCwCgqMK5
OnkuFkq3ooF4Bc+eZy8BqF4=
=aXYH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
