[Info-vax] Setting Default Owner of a File

[Paul Sture]

In article 
<2f4b4747-717b-4902-a9c3-73ee2b1a4d7f at e8g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
 jbriggs444 <jbriggs444 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 2, 11:26 am, gartm... at nonsense.immunbio.mpg.de (Christoph
> Gartmann) wrote:
> > In article 
> > <58d49ccf-21f5-462c-b1a5-83b77ba63... at n11g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, abrsvc 
> > <dansabrservi... at yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >All of the discussions here have been related to the access and
> > >protection NOT ownership as initially requested.  I still believe that
> > >in order for the initial request to work properly WITH disk quotas.  I
> > >have tested this on V7.3-2 with teh following scenerio and file
> > >ownership is as listed below:
> >
> > >User1 - Name: Filetest with UIC [543,123]
> > >User2 - Name: Filet1    with UIC [543,321]
> >
> > >I have used the directory [filetest] as the target which is owned by
> > >[543,123] and has protection (rwe,rwe,re,re)
> >
> > >Files created by account Filet1 in [filetest] are owned by [543,123]
> > >NOT [543,321].  In other words, the quota is consumed by the directory
> > >owner as requested by the initial poster.
> >
> > >Please note that both accounts have GRPPRV enabled.  Without the
> > >GRPPRV, the file create fails with an insufficient priv violation.
> >
> > This was my initial thought and setup as well. But with FTP access it 
> > didn't
> > work this way.
> 
> This sounds like a bug^H^H^H idiosyncracy in your FTP package.  It
> would appear that the FTP server process is not using the "GRPPRV" privilege
> on behalf of its client.
> 
> Possibly a different FTP server would behave differently in this
> respect. You could grab one and see.

It wouldn't surprise me if we are talking TCP/IP Services here.  Various 
aspects of it have not been "fully VMS aware" in its history.

-- 
Paul Sture