Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 22:44:02 -0600 (CST) From: "Mike Pritchard" <mpp@mpp.minn.net> To: freebsd@xaa.stack.urc.tue.nl (Mark Huizer) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: pop3 and blocked users Message-ID: <199602210444.WAA00325@mpp.minn.net> In-Reply-To: <199602202159.WAA00598@xaa.stack.urc.tue.nl> from "Mark Huizer" at Feb 20, 96 10:59:04 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mark Huizer wrote: > > > Shouldn't pop implementation check if users are having a shell not > > listed in /etc/shells? Otherwise, blocked users will stil be able to > > recieve mail.. > > Well... it's quite simple to change that. I just did it for my computing > society. Simply check it in pop_pass.c and give a POP_FAILURE. > But I feel a bit funny about it. When I had a machine with pop-accounts, I > could imagine WANTING to give ppl a non-existant shell, so they can only > access mail. > Another thing I am going to do tomorrow or something is changing it > so it won't give an error when the blocked user is connecting. It would > be even better if it would standard generate a mailbox containing of > only 1 message telling that the *()^^&* user is blocked and should take > some serious action in stead of trying to read mail You might want to change the pop daemon to honor the account expiration field (the pw_expire field in the pwd struct) instead of keying off the shell. That would let you set an nologin type shell for POP only users, but still allow you a method to totally disable the account. Take a look at the source to "login" for an example. I fixed all of the other access methods to the system to support account expiration sometime last summer/fall. -- Mike Pritchard mpp@minn.net "Go that way. Really fast. If something gets in your way, turn"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199602210444.WAA00325>