From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Aug 14 08:17:00 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id IAA04679 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 08:17:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gatekeeper.fsl.noaa.gov (gatekeeper.fsl.noaa.gov [137.75.131.181]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA04672 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 08:16:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emu.fsl.noaa.gov (kelly@emu.fsl.noaa.gov [137.75.60.32]) by gatekeeper.fsl.noaa.gov (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA10867; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 15:03:52 GMT Message-Id: <199608141503.PAA10867@gatekeeper.fsl.noaa.gov> Received: by emu.fsl.noaa.gov (1.40.112.4/16.2) id AA149335102; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 09:05:02 -0600 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 09:05:02 -0600 From: Sean Kelly To: Alexis Yushin , hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: permission control tool Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Why no support for netgroups? They're a perfect way to put together combinations of users, hosts, and users and hosts; they're distributable via NIS; and there are library calls to query them. You could integrate them into grammar you've already made by using a convention like @ refers to the netgroup . Or, you could make your grammar even simpler by using only netgroups as specifiers (losing the benefit of .group part of user.group identification). What do you think? -- Sean Kelly NOAA Forecast Systems Laboratory kelly@fsl.noaa.gov Boulder Colorado USA http://www-sdd.fsl.noaa.gov/~kelly/