Hello,

Thanks for your answer. I’m not an acl guru and it’s on our main directory 
setup, so I prefer to be sure before cleaning my acls.

f.g.

> Le 13 janv. 2025 à 13:05, Ondřej Kuzník <[email protected]> a écrit :
> 
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 05:23:24PM +0100, Frédéric Goudal wrote:
>> I’m working on the acl on my ldap, and I have found a rule that puzzle
>> me on it’s last statement :
>> 
>>  by * +0 break
>> 
>> Well as 0 means no access what does +0 mean ? On my opinion it does
>> nothing and the statement is equivalent to : 
>> 
>> by * break
>> 
>> Am I correct or do I miss something ?
> 
> Hi Frédéric,
> yes, they should be equivalent - the person/software that created them
> probably wanted to avoid access being set back to "none" here or just
> wanted to be a little more explicit about the same.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -- 
> Ondřej Kuzník
> Senior Software Engineer
> Symas Corporation                       http://www.symas.com
> Packaged, certified, and supported LDAP solutions powered by OpenLDAP

— 
Frédéric Goudal
Ingénieur Système, DSI Bordeaux-INP
+33 556 84 23 11




Reply via email to