From owner-freebsd-questions  Mon Oct  7 12:24:40 1996
Return-Path: owner-questions
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id MAA20277
          for questions-outgoing; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 12:24:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from brasil.moneng.mei.com (brasil.moneng.mei.com [151.186.109.160])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA20250;
          Mon, 7 Oct 1996 12:24:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from jgreco@localhost) by brasil.moneng.mei.com (8.7.Beta.1/8.7.Beta.1) id OAA13826; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 14:22:55 -0500
From: Joe Greco <jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com>
Message-Id: <199610071922.OAA13826@brasil.moneng.mei.com>
Subject: Re: User name length limit increase
To: kline@tera.com (Gary Kline)
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 14:22:55 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: branson@widomaker.com, kajtzu@iug.org, erik@il.ft.hse.nl,
        questions@FreeBSD.org, Jos.Vissers@telebyte.NL, isp@FreeBSD.org
In-Reply-To: <199610071824.LAA05970@athena.tera.com> from "Gary Kline" at Oct 7, 96 11:24:37 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> 	In the my two-cents-worth department, I agree with this
> 	logic.  The 8-character-length was from the days when 
> 	virtually no one saw the need for more than a few computers
> 	total in the universe.  
> 
> 	Times have changed.
> 
> 	To the core group and other OS gurus, and whoever else 
> 	may be interested, I pose this question: couldn't the 
> 	8 be changed to, say, 64  without causing any hassles
> 	anywhere?  How does Sun, for one, get away with logins
> 	like `john.q.engineer@eng.sun.com'??

because that is not a login, but rather a mailbox address?

... JG