Community technical support mailing list was retired 2010 and replaced with a professional technical support team. For assistance please contact: Pre-sales Technical support via email to sales@march-hare.com.
Hello again, Oliver Koltermann <okoltermann_deletethis_ at gmx.de> writes: > Gerhard Fiedler <lists at connectionbrazil.com> writes: > > > I'd expect a more specific setting to override a more general setting, so > > giving write access to a specific file should IMO override the missing > > write access on the directory. > > > > What would be the rationale for the write access on the file being > > overridden by the missing write access on the directory? In that case, what > > would be the purpose of being able to grant write access to a file? > > If I remember correctly, the normal way it is interpreted on *nix is, > that directory write gives the right to create/modify the directory > entries, e.g. adding new files. The access of existing files is > determined by the files permission. There is no specific-to-general > relation as you assumed. > > For example if a user has no directory read access, he is not able to > list the contents of the directory. But if he knows the name of a file > in this directory with read access right for him, he can access this > file. I hope this makes the concept clear. > > And I hope I understand it right... ;-) > Comments appreciated! after reading the corresponding manual page for CVSNT (shame on me!) I realized, that my description does not completely fit the CVSNT's ACL scheme. Different from *nix ACL there is a special create permission for the directory and the read/write permissions are indeed for the contained files. The manual states the following: "For a user to have access to a directory, they must have at least read access to all the directories above it. If a user has a 'no access' ACL on a parent directory they cannot be granted access to directories below it." I assume the same is true for the write access right. Best regards, O. Koltermann