Great Circle Associates Majordomo-Workers
(January 1997)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: Possible bug in access_check
From: Dave Wolfe <dwolfe @ risc . sps . mot . com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 12:12:43 -0600 (CST)
To: jjr @ databook . com (Jim Reisert)
Cc: david_wolfe @ risc . sps . mot . com, lou @ metron . com, majordomo-workers @ greatcircle . com, tibbs @ hpc . uh . edu
In-reply-to: <9701081709.AA04389@sttng.databook.com> from "Jim Reisert" at Jan 8, 97 12:09:16 pm
Reply-to: Dave Wolfe <david_wolfe @ risc . sps . mot . com>

[ Jim Reisert writes: ]
> 
> So does this mean if I put:
> 
> 	restrict_post = listname:listname-digest
> 
> and both 'listname' and 'listname-digest' live in my ~majordom/lists 
> directory, this will work as well (for both posting messages, as well as file 
> requests)?

That's the rumor.

> And will this continue to work with future versions of MajorDomo?

Far more likely than absolute paths, but I, for one, consider
overloading 'restrict_post' with the 'access_*' duties a hack. It'll
probably live for 1.94.x, but it's certain that the entire access
structure will radically change for 2.x.

-- 
 Dave Wolfe


References:
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: MAJORDOMO ABORT (fwd)
From: Dave Wolfe <dwolfe@risc.sps.mot.com>
Next: Re: Possible bug in access_check
From: Dave Wolfe <dwolfe@risc.sps.mot.com>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: Possible bug in access_check
From: Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@hpc.uh.edu>
Next: Re: Possible bug in access_check
From: Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@hpc.uh.edu>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com