Date: 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 Message-ID: <21096.936259315@axl.noc.iafrica.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 01 Sep 1999 20:48:59 -0400." <19990901204859.B14974@mad>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?21096.936259315>