"access: A" in STABLE (was: Patches from CVS)

Jeffrey M. Vinocur jeff at litech.org
Thu Jan 31 03:36:29 UTC 2002


On 31 Jan 2002, Bettina Fink wrote:

> > Hrm.  I haven't actually tried to use that code to restrict access; I
> > don't know if it works or not.  I believe I correctly ported it from
> > CURRENT, and the code in CURRENT does work.
>
> AFAICS, it doesn't work. I've tried with different snapshot versions

Did you try CURRENT?  (You can use CURRENT nnrpd with an otherwise STABLE
installation with no problems unless you use perl auth, see NEWS in
CURRENT for details.)


> >> I switched back to STABLE-20011201, were it worked (tested a few moments
> >> ago).
> >
> > Are you sure?  I believe that release will allow everyone to post Approved
> > regardless of the presence or absence of "access: A".
>
> mmmh, I only checked if posting with Approved headers works, not if
> the absence of "A" prevents postings with Approved. Maybe the old
> code is broken the other way round,

I'm almost positive that's the case.


> but I have several users that post FAQs or are moderators, so for me
> "all" is a better choice than "none" ...

Yes, we need to get this fixed as soon as possible.  I'm about to go look
at the code, but I see that I did miss the following:

--- perm.c      2002/01/22 02:35:50     1.17.2.12
+++ perm.c      2002/01/31 03:15:02
@@ -406,6 +406,7 @@
 {
     curaccess->allownewnews = innconf->allownewnews;;
     curaccess->locpost = FALSE;
+    curaccess->allowapproved = FALSE;
     curaccess->localtime = FALSE;
     curaccess->strippath = FALSE;
     curaccess->nnrpdperlfilter = TRUE;

because it wasn't in the same commit as the rest of the approval stuff.  I
can't see how that would make a difference, but you could try it while I
keep looking.


-- 
Jeffrey M. Vinocur
jeff at litech.org



More information about the inn-workers mailing list