From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Sep  2  1: 3:34 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from axl.noc.iafrica.com (axl.noc.iafrica.com [196.31.1.175])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 5890314EC5; Thu,  2 Sep 1999 01:03:08 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from sheldonh@axl.noc.iafrica.com)
Received: from sheldonh (helo=axl.noc.iafrica.com)
	by axl.noc.iafrica.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1)
	id 11MRoh-0005UH-00; Thu, 02 Sep 1999 10:01:55 +0200
From: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za>
To: hoek@FreeBSD.org
Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: Proposal: Add generic username for 3rd-party MTA's 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 01 Sep 1999 20:48:59 -0400."
             <19990901204859.B14974@mad> 
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 10:01:55 +0200
Message-ID: <21096.936259315@axl.noc.iafrica.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG



On Wed, 01 Sep 1999 20:48:59 -0400, Tim Vanderhoek wrote:

> Will ports adapt easily to this?

Yes. Those that already try to work around the absence of a reserved
user will have to do less work. Those that run priveledged will be
easier to transition to a non-priveledged state.

> Having ports add their own users and groups is fairly trivial.

You are right. But it seems to me that it's unnecessary work when
there's already a username reserved for them.

> Using a single user:group could make some of the ports less standard
> (eg. most of the world does not run qmail under user ``smtp'' or
> group ``mail'').

From the sound of things, qmail is closer to the exception than it is to
the rule, eh? If qmail wants lots of usernames, fine, leave it the way
it is. Postfix and Exim in particular, though, would benefit from this
addition.

> OTOH, I can see that having a common user:group would be useful and
> make some things easier, too.

And that's all I want -- to make things easier. :-)

Ciao,
Sheldon.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message