search for: acl_us

...creating lib/dummy config.status: creating zlib/dummy config.status: creating popt/dummy config.status: creating shconfig config.status: creating config.h rsync 2.6.9 configuration successful errors noted when running make: racls.c: In function 'save_idas': acls.c:243: error: 'ACL_USER' undeclared (first use in this function) acls.c:243: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once acls.c:243: error: for each function it appears in.) acls.c: In function 'unpack_smb_acl': acls.c:284: error: 'ACL_READ' undeclared (first use in this function) acls.c...

A bit of a minor off-topic issue, but on the off-chance that someone understands how ACLs work ... I've been trying to see if using default ACLs would help with the following issue: I have a third party application that is running as a non-root user ('user-a') and creating log files with mode 0600 (read/write only to the owner) in a log directory I have another application that

Look at the acl(5) man page and you'll see that the ACCESS CHECK ALGORITH starts: IF the effective user ID of the process matches the user ID of the file object owner ... ELSE IF the effective user ID of the process matches the qualifier of any entry of type ACL_USER, THEN IF the matching ACL_USER entry and the ACL_MASK entry contain the requested permissions, access is granted, ELSE access is denied. ELSE ... The effective user ID is <user-b>. This matches an ACL_USER entry (user:user-b:r--) so therefore consider the ACL_MASK...

...vecot.conf # Pigeonhole version 0.5.7.1 (db5c74be) # OS: Linux 4.15.18-18-pve x86_64 Debian 9.9 auth_master_user_separator = * mail_plugins = quota acl passdb { args = /etc/dovecot/passwd.masterusers driver = passwd-file master = yes pass = yes } plugin { acl = vfile:/etc/dovecot/dovecot-acl acl_user = %u master_user = %u } protocol lmtp { mail_plugins = quota acl sieve } protocol lda { mail_plugins = quota acl sieve } protocol imap { mail_plugins = quota acl imap_acl imap_quota } On ACL documentation it says: > Note that master users have their own ACLs. They're not the the mail...

How would I go, If I wanted ACL processing to start with %{auth_user} instead of %{user} when determining rights? -- peter

...conf # Pigeonhole version 0.5.7.1 (db5c74be) # OS: Linux 4.15.18-18-pve x86_64 Debian 9.9 auth_master_user_separator = * mail_plugins = quota acl passdb { args = /etc/dovecot/passwd.masterusers driver = passwd-file master = yes pass = yes } plugin { acl = vfile:/etc/dovecot/dovecot-acl acl_user = %u master_user = %u } protocol lmtp { mail_plugins = quota acl sieve } protocol lda { mail_plugins = quota acl sieve } protocol imap { mail_plugins = quota acl imap_acl imap_quota } On ACL documentation it says: > Note that master users have their own ACLs. They're not the the...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 #$ setfacl -m u:mf:r bla #$ getfacl bla # file: bla # owner: root # group: root user::rw- user:mf:r-- group::r-- mask::r-- other::r-- It is readable by mf like intended. #$ chmod go-rwx bla #$ getfacl bla # file: bla # owner: root # group: root user::rw- user:mf:r-- #effective:--- group::r-- #effective:--- mask::--- other::--- It is not

Thank you, How and where ? I configured only this: cat /Library/Server/Mail/Data/shared/shared-mailboxes * user=masteruser lr masteruser is ok for all masters (mailmaster) ? Luda > Am 09.04.2019 um 09:33 schrieb Aki Tuomi <aki.tuomi at open-xchange.com>: > > Hi! > > You need to grant the master user rights in your ACL file. > > Aki -------------- next part

Maybe I'm doing somthing really stupid, but while copying some windows share onto a samba server, on some random subdirectory robocopy says ERROR 87 (0x00000057) Copying NTFS Security to Destination Directory... The samba logfile has lots of these lines. modules/vfs_posixacl.c:349(smb_acl_to_posix) smb_acl_to_posix: ACL is invalid for set (Das Argument ist ung?ltig) The strange thing is

I just committed code for IMAP ACL support based on the code from Kolab people. I did quite large changes though. I also changed how global ACLs are handled. Previously local ACLs could override global ACLs, but now that users are able to modify the ACLs I think it should be the other way around. From what I've heard global ACLs are typically added for things like 1) disallowing user from

...for (i = 0; i < count; i++, dst_entry++) { - src_entry = (ext2_acl_entry *)src; - if (src + sizeof(ext2_acl_entry_short) > end) - goto fail; - dst_entry->e_tag = src_entry->e_tag; - dst_entry->e_perm = src_entry->e_perm; - switch (le16_to_cpu(src_entry->e_tag)) { - case ACL_USER_OBJ: - case ACL_GROUP_OBJ: - case ACL_MASK: - case ACL_OTHER: - src += sizeof(ext2_acl_entry_short); - dst_entry->e_id = cpu_to_le32(ACL_UNDEFINED_ID); - break; - case ACL_USER: - case ACL_GROUP: - src += sizeof(ext2_acl_entry); - if (src > end) - goto fail; - dst_entry-...