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=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 7394 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2021 14:33:31 -0000 Received: from 1ess.inri.net (216.126.196.35) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 23 Jan 2021 14:33:31 -0000 Received: from mail-ed1-f53.google.com ([209.85.208.53]) by 1ess; Sat Jan 23 09:02:45 -0500 2021 Received: by mail-ed1-f53.google.com with SMTP id s11so9835387edd.5 for <9front@9front.org>; Sat, 23 Jan 2021 06:02:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=ZF9YaRXfG3L2A3lfhyjtH1kdhWTWgLzj3R3PNQX07Gg=; b=poMnVh7HxXshxJtSuk7UK4KD7XlUyanZhcsoXVpywPkLmLZJswGWjTxVVpty5Pyfqo BEyhhEqs1eMtswymuXCM9sYGitMwzR1FoUMlHfKi/Sm8v3rwUbk8WJDF68e65LmUoupT UzWHry/cXty0kuMJfMC6zGefN8RNlECF017RRTauYlxzSF1HkeossavlhbsbR6YEB4kT bw2GZ6IWevnP3zfdr/IPmMOpf+U6/ZFniye4NlIJL1aeJz5WtAryEfDqg6NkDgeYk2mE 9w3sAzwsffogMK0Cg6q5PpKh0sCw6/P+dAQEW25BN03bU9Kjarw3yvr44bAEJ0N6MClv ySrg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=ZF9YaRXfG3L2A3lfhyjtH1kdhWTWgLzj3R3PNQX07Gg=; b=P8FXQ+ges/aERnayIpTb/RnkTz041lZyR14IaGG+RhOEoS5tVChETo/M9+1GcLgnid w2L2iH9X7iAflLEgIqEvpVZMKhd4YFrxxGWRSaPRhI6NzHmJyAmUMjQA0GTI/Y8GVU1n twIIzQ1LZQHFJFyCZzfctUkB0EiHGuwc+m3OcAnW38Lisac6p4u/hduWhWQFzGSPCsmq r4Jp9dEob5DiFJ4nbLXA9N2CuKw7nDTHClpFvOJXjhOQo6LCZ4p1s+s/FrkkkQeV1yFI upH/T0oHvlxWChaBBqkHCO3dnBZVt47MzFEpIYsVCDQWI99jvnsPdvhQpS+PUtwd4thu BjKw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532akKoMoD9Ny5bk7yjAW5ry3aLuKo3Sq7JCknBVKoYyVzAj78/d j3bzpb6dAPleOpIMNcK/YkZW3YWjetCnAPsuG6t0e4tw+hM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxgEZBYbPH/bQtDJhoNmgRGATLdJaZ98yVKxxXijwdkUKG92zSgQgKNc1299m7CXUS9GEhQE55qUyzKYgNOIEo= X-Received: by 2002:aa7:c4c9:: with SMTP id p9mr7408127edr.234.1611410555772; Sat, 23 Jan 2021 06:02:35 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a17:906:3f91:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Sat, 23 Jan 2021 06:02:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: hiro <23hiro@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2021 15:02:34 +0100 Message-ID: To: 9front@9front.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" List-ID: <9front.9front.org> List-Help: X-Glyph: ➈ X-Bullshit: rich-client descriptor-aware method Subject: Re: [9front] notes on user none Reply-To: 9front@9front.org Precedence: bulk yeah, if making nonone the default makes it all more consistent with how it was in the labs that's what we should do, i agree. very nice writeup, anthony. On 1/23/21, sirjofri wrote: > Hello, > > imo this is valuable research that should be documented if possible. > > This also makes clear the none differences between fossil and cwfs, and > it's a nice template to look how hjfs works. Sadly I have no hjfs running > anywhere, only cwfs[1]. > > This also conforms to sl's suggestion to add nonone to cpurc or > something, so that cwfs works more like fossil, which also makes the > system more secure. I'd personally even think about making it the default > and allow users to explicitly enable none authentication, but I don't > think my vote counts that much. I'm sure ori, sl, cinap as well as many > others have more experience to decide this. > > just my 2 cents. > > sirjofri > > [1] the "experimental" note always tells me not to use it. Also I'm happy > with cwfs and have no reason to switch to hjfs, although users report > that hjfs is pretty stable. >