From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <14ec7b180810201805r376a665u7116175c4e387b26@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:05:44 -0600
From: "andrey mirtchovski" <mirtchovski@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net>
In-Reply-To: <476c0463b6a73667d50ba792ef1ada3d@quanstro.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <476c0463b6a73667d50ba792ef1ada3d@quanstro.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Multi-domain authentication?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 234041f6-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> i'm not sure.  what does "complete filesystem semantics" mean?  let me
> rephrase.

honouring group and user permissions, instead of using a
world-writable partition with everybody treated as "none".

> the premise is that the local system, and thus i assume the local fs, has
> no knowledge of the user.  this task has been delegated to a foreign auth
> server.  so what are the mechanics of getting the local fs to treat an
> unknown user as something other than none?

i don't believe everything was thought-through very thoroughly before
people became indifferent to the idea. one suggestion was to use
"user@authdom" for figuring out "local" vs "remote" users (i.e.,
become "user@authdom" instead of "none").

> supposing this problem is solved, don't you need quotas or something
> if you don't know who exactly to yell at for filling up the worm?

access control lists? i'm afraid i don't know the answer and i'm
certainly not prepared to dive into this any deeper. it's been quite a
while :)

i hope to have relayed the original idea: give "friendly users" some
access to your resources.