Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 20:26:03 -0700 From: "M.R.Murphy" <mrm@Mole.ORG> To: dgy@rtd.com, joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: uucp uid's Message-ID: <199705310326.UAA13385@meerkat.mole.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > If each UUCP dialup account has a unique login and that is compromised, you > can tell exactly where the problem originated, can disable that *single* > account (vs. *all* of them) without affecting service to other accounts > and can go in search of how the problem originated in the first place. Each UUCP dialup account can have a unique login without having a unique UID :-) That's not to say I don't think a unique UID is good, just that it can be done. I _do_ think unique UID's are a good thing. > > > The only argument that made sense so far was somebody who wanted to > > run process accounting for them. That was me ... it was on a System V R2 box that's been running for over 10 years, first as a '286, then a '386, now a '486DLC (all with the same software). It's about to be decomissioned. It still does full accounting, but now only does UUCP over TCP since its phone lines were disconnected. > > UUCP itself is a dinosaur. Yet, I see several places that use UUCP as > their sole connection to the electronic world. Kinda tough to force > a client/customer to do things *your* way when *he's* paying the bills! :> > > --don > UUCP was a good dinosaur. It still has advantages in this highly interconnected world. I especially liked the multiple connectivity fishnet rather than the cluster connected net we now have. More hrummmph. :-) -- Mike Murphy mrm@Mole.ORG +1 619 598 5874 Better is the enemy of Good
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199705310326.UAA13385>