Hi Sebastian,
Today Sebastian Harl wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 11:36:42AM +0200, Florian Forster wrote:
> > Wouldn't it be *much* simpler to simply let the user chose what to do?
> > I. e. forbid absolute paths by default and only if the
> > --i-know-what-i-am-doing-and-reall
Today kevin brintnall wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 11:36:42AM +0200, Florian Forster wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 01:14:24PM +0200, Tobias Oetiker wrote:
> > > I think the current implementation where only relative paths are
> > > allowed for remote access is fine, since this provides a
On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 11:36:42AM +0200, Florian Forster wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 01:14:24PM +0200, Tobias Oetiker wrote:
> > I think the current implementation where only relative paths are
> > allowed for remote access is fine, since this provides a measure of
> > protection when people
Hi again,
On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 11:36:42AM +0200, Florian Forster wrote:
> Wouldn't it be *much* simpler to simply let the user chose what to do?
> I. e. forbid absolute paths by default and only if the
> --i-know-what-i-am-doing-and-really-need-absolute-paths-please
> option is given accept a
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 11:36:42AM +0200, Florian Forster wrote:
> Wouldn't it be *much* simpler to simply let the user chose what to do?
> I. e. forbid absolute paths by default and only if the
> --i-know-what-i-am-doing-and-really-need-absolute-paths-please
> option is given accept absolut
Hi,
sorry if I'm bringing up a point that was already denied, but I have to
admit that reading through that entire discussion is totally tiresome …
On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 01:14:24PM +0200, Tobias Oetiker wrote:
> I think the current implementation where only relative paths are
> allowed for remo
Hi Benny,
On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 02:22:40AM +0200, Benny Baumann wrote:
> Am 04.10.2009 00:46, schrieb Sebastian Harl:
> > On Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 11:54:53PM +0200, Benny Baumann wrote:
> >> Am 03.10.2009 23:36, schrieb Tobias Oetiker:
> >>> Today Sebastian Harl wrote:
> When talking to a lo
Hi Sebastian,
Today Sebastian Harl wrote:
> Hi Benny,
>
> Thanks for your feedback!
>
> On Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 11:54:53PM +0200, Benny Baumann wrote:
> > Am 03.10.2009 23:36, schrieb Tobias Oetiker:
> > > Today Sebastian Harl wrote:
> > >> When talking to a local daemon (thru a UNIX socket), rel
Hi Sebastian,
Today Sebastian Harl wrote:
> Hi Tobi,
>
> On Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 11:36:11PM +0200, Tobias Oetiker wrote:
> > Today Sebastian Harl wrote:
> > > When talking to a local daemon (thru a UNIX socket), relative path names
> > > are
> > > resolved to absolute path names to allow for tr
Hi,
Am 04.10.2009 00:46, schrieb Sebastian Harl:
> Hi Benny,
>
> Thanks for your feedback!
>
> On Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 11:54:53PM +0200, Benny Baumann wrote:
>
>> Am 03.10.2009 23:36, schrieb Tobias Oetiker:
>>
>>> Today Sebastian Harl wrote:
>>>
When talking to a local daemon
Hi Benny,
Thanks for your feedback!
On Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 11:54:53PM +0200, Benny Baumann wrote:
> Am 03.10.2009 23:36, schrieb Tobias Oetiker:
> > Today Sebastian Harl wrote:
> >> When talking to a local daemon (thru a UNIX socket), relative path names
> >> are
> >> resolved to absolute path
Hi Tobi,
On Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 11:36:11PM +0200, Tobias Oetiker wrote:
> Today Sebastian Harl wrote:
> > When talking to a local daemon (thru a UNIX socket), relative path names are
> > resolved to absolute path names to allow for transparent integration into
> > existing solutions (as requested
Hi,
Am 03.10.2009 23:36, schrieb Tobias Oetiker:
> Hi Sebastian,
>
> Today Sebastian Harl wrote:
>
>> When talking to a local daemon (thru a UNIX socket), relative path names are
>> resolved to absolute path names to allow for transparent integration into
>> existing solutions (as requested by
Hi Sebastian,
Today Sebastian Harl wrote:
> When talking to a local daemon (thru a UNIX socket), relative path names are
> resolved to absolute path names to allow for transparent integration into
> existing solutions (as requested by Tobi).
>
> However, when talking to a remote daemon, absolute
When talking to a local daemon (thru a UNIX socket), relative path names are
resolved to absolute path names to allow for transparent integration into
existing solutions (as requested by Tobi).
However, when talking to a remote daemon, absolute path names are not allowed,
since path name translati
15 matches
Mail list logo