On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 12:10:47PM -0400, Nathan J. Williams wrote:

> > I would have considered it also to be broken, had it not allowed such
> > configurations to work.
> 
> Rather, consider that Solaris has been misleading you about the
> security provided by NFS. Now, if you're depending on NFS for security
> anyway, I have a lovely bridge in downtown Tuscon at an attractive
> price.... 

I take your point about security, but I wasn't really referring to the
security - rather, the flexibility of configuration.

Given that NFS implies a certain lack of security (despite it's
popularity and success), I can't see how adding reasonable
functionality would adversely affect that security.

If the level of security is already trivial, and the demand for a
working, featureful NFS server implementation exists ...

g.