On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 01:12:42AM -0700, Wayne Davison wrote: >On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 11:00:01AM -0400, George Georgalis wrote: >> A lot of these posts 3 years old, is there plans or reasons not to >> include [--source-filter / --dest-filter] in the main line code? > >That patch opens up a huge security hole in daemon servers, so that >would have to be handled somehow (perhaps by making those options >auto-refused). There are also several bugs/deficiencies that would need >to be fixed (my updated patch--see below--lists the ones that I saw but >didn't fix). Even if all that were done, I'd still be hesitant to add >these options, though. > >I've just updated the several-year-old patch, and committed it into the >patches dir: > >http://rsync.samba.org/ftp/unpacked/rsync/patches/source-filter_dest-filter.diff
Thanks for the update, looks like there is still some issues to resolve, even for in-house use. The goal still seems pretty desirable though. Regards, // George -- George Georgalis, systems architect, administrator <IXOYE>< http://galis.org/ cell:646-331-2027 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
