RE: wish-list (new perm flag)

• Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 07:27:23 PDT
• From:
  Graeme Smith <grysmith@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca>
• Cc: "'MOO Cows'" <moo-Cows@parc.xerox.com>
• Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
• In-Reply-To: <1996Aug21.170500.1255.1327974@mspost.ic.gc.ca>

Hmmm.....

how about user/group/wiz/all ? with the wiz perm limited to things like
!w or !x (for verbs that might be misused if run by a Wiz by mistake and
hacked by someone else)

I like the group concept, because it allows multiple ownership of objects
properties, and verbs, if carried to the limit. The "Owner" of record,
allows his "group" to work on the Object, and perfect it.



GRAEME SMITH                         email: grysmith@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca 
YMCA Edmonton             
(Back on line!>

On Wed, 21 Aug 1996 ninoles.fabien@ic.gc.ca wrote:

> 
> <SNAP ON>
> 
>  ----------
> From:  jesse montrose[SMTP:jesse@spine.com]
> Sent:  Wednesday, August 21, 1996 12:11 PM
> To:  MOO-Cows
> Subject:  Re: wish-list (new perm flag)
> 
> 
> I really like this idea.  Perhaps it could be handled with a more   
> unix-like
> permission set?  User/Group/Other?  It wouldn't have to break any old   
> perms,

[snipped attribution to original message, sorry]

> >Perhaps a 't' flag meaning caller must be == this, others for other   
> common
> >checks...
> [snip]
> 
[snip]
> 
> And about the user/group/all idea, I would let it to a
> user/wiz/all idea in place (and keep the x flag for
> compatibility!)
> 
> Fab.  

• RE: wish-list (new perm flag)
• From: ninoles.fabien@ic.gc.ca (Ninoles, Fabien: DGSE)

• Prev: RE: wish-list (new perm flag)
• Index: MOO-cows
• Thread: MOO-cows