From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Received: (qmail 12385 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2023 04:00:51 -0000
Received: from 9front.inri.net (168.235.81.73)
  by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 6 Jan 2023 04:00:51 -0000
Received: from vultr.musolino.id.au ([45.76.123.158]) by 9front; Thu Jan  5 22:59:06 -0500 2023
Received: from 180.150.112.162 ([180.150.112.162]) by vultr; Fri Jan  6 14:58:47 +1100 2023
Message-ID: <992175CE74233FDD14A74C7841551FAB@musolino.id.au>
To: 9front@9front.org
From: Alex Musolino <alex@musolino.id.au>
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2023 14:28:46 +1030
In-Reply-To: <1C1048E2C391774EFECA92102DFB1F57@gaff.inri.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-ID: <9front.9front.org>
List-Help: <http://lists.9front.org>
X-Glyph: ➈
X-Bullshit: extended pipelining template general-purpose hosting framework 
Subject: Re: [9front] cwfs footgun
Reply-To: 9front@9front.org
Precedence: bulk

> http://fqa.9front.org/fqa7.html#7.3.3

Why do you have to type 'noauth' twice?  To me the example makes it
look like authentication was already enabled, which would seem to make
the whole exercise pointless.  Was the example generated on a machine
that already had authentication enabled perhaps?  If not, what am I
missing?

Also, how does hjfs avoid this problem?