On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 17:04:27 -0700, Mark Sapiro wrote
> Noah wrote:
> >
> >I hear what you are saying but not completely understanding your analysis.
> >The point of the permissions and ownership changes is so the web server has
> >access to the private directory. And then to o-x the private dire
Noah wrote:
>
>I hear what you are saying but not completely understanding your analysis.
>The point of the permissions and ownership changes is so the web server has
>access to the private directory. And then to o-x the private directory keeps
>local users from accessing the private directories
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 11:49:12 -0700, Mark Sapiro wrote
> Noah wrote:
> >
> >Well the sym links appear to work fine from an apache/browser perspective. I
> >dont think there has been any problems yet.
> >
> >archiving appears to be working properly for both public and private
> >archives.
>
> The
Noah wrote:
>
>Well the sym links appear to work fine from an apache/browser perspective. I
>dont think there has been any problems yet.
>
>archiving appears to be working properly for both public and private archives.
The issue is not whether one or the other will work or not from the
Apache p
>
> >but what I did do was remove all other permissions and put the ownership of
> >the private directory to www to solve the problem. check_perms works well
> >now.
> >
> ># ls -l
> >total 6
> >drwxrws--- 103 www mailman 2560 Apr 21 21:49 private
> >drwxrwsr-x2 mailman mailman 153
Noah wrote off list:
>after a 'chmod o+x private/' the public and private mailman archives are
>visible.
>
>but now when I run the bin/check_perms -f I see the following warning:
>
># ./check_perms -f
>Warning: Private archive directory is other-executable (o+x).
>This could allow other u
