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 10876 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2021 10:16:25 -0000 Received: from 1ess.inri.net (216.126.196.35) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 23 Jan 2021 10:16:25 -0000 Received: from oat.nine.sirjofri.de ([5.45.105.127]) by 1ess; Sat Jan 23 04:46:12 -0500 2021 Received: from sirjofri.de ([178.0.65.31]) by oat; Sat Jan 23 10:46:01 +0100 2021 Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2021 09:45:57 +0000 (UTC) From: sirjofri To: Anthony Martin <9front@9front.org> Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Correlation-ID: List-ID: <9front.9front.org> List-Help: X-Glyph: ➈ X-Bullshit: optimized generic engine database template interface Subject: Re: [9front] notes on user none Reply-To: 9front@9front.org Precedence: bulk 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.