On Fri, 2010-03-19 at 22:09 +0100, Thomas Hummel wrote: > On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 09:11:32PM +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote: > > Thanks for your answer Timo. > > > > a) I wonder if TB even support the SETACL command since I don't see how I > > > can > > > modify an ACL through the TB UI. > > > > It doesn't. > > Ouch! What known UA does support it ?
Mulberry, Kolab, some webmail plugins maybe. > What's the point of supporting only GETACL ? I guess it just shows nicely what mailboxes are shared. > I guess this means that if users > run this client, shared mailboxes have to be managed by an administrator, > right > ? Or some custom web interface. > > Yes, they're basically the same. But in that context "easier for virtual > > users" means "easier if all your users use the same uid", since most > > people use the same uid for virtual users.. (I don't think wiki confuses > > these two things?) > > Ok, but I still don't quite get it : if you use the same UID, doesn't this > somehow equates giving something like 777 modes in the system user case ? (I > mean on an OS level, problems related to such loose permission are the same > and, if in 777, permissions are no longer a problem for dovecot) ? Pretty much. But 0777 permissions are somewhat worse for security than just giving a single shared uid 0700 permissions. :) So there's nothing magical about virtual users making this easier. It's just that most people wouldn't like using 0777/0666 permissions for all mails..
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
