Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ut-sally.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!std-unix
From: std-unix@ut-sally.UUCP (Moderator, John Quarterman)
Newsgroups: mod.std.unix
Subject: per directory umask
Message-ID: <4117@ut-sally.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 4-Feb-86 16:12:33 EST
Article-I.D.: ut-sally.4117
Posted: Tue Feb  4 16:12:33 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 5-Feb-86 03:29:58 EST
Organization: IEEE/P1003 Portable Operating System Environment Committee
Lines: 24
Approved: jsq@sally.UUCP

Date: Tue, 4 Feb 86 07:19:30 PST
>From: mordor!lll-crg!hoptoad!laura (Laura Creighton)

I think that while it might have been better if umask had worked this way from
the beginning, changing existing behaviour is a bad idea.  You will burn
people who expect one behaviour and get another. 

I am actually not sure that it is a good idea at all.  The main reason I know
of that people want the proposal is so that they can have a varying levels of
protection and privacy without much effort.  But if they really want privacy,
then they *should* be going to the effort -- this is the whole idea.  If they
depend on the filesystem when they should be depending on themselves they are
going to get a rude surprise one day when their security is compromised.

I don't think that the current umask situation is broken.  Why are we trying
to fix it?

[ See the following article by Dan Franklin.  -mod ]

Laura Creighton		
ihnp4!hoptoad!laura 
hoptoad!laura@lll-crg.arpa

Volume-Number: Volume 5, Number 34