Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 21:03:22 -0700 (MST) From: Don Yuniskis <dgy@rtd.com> To: mrm@Mole.ORG (M.R.Murphy) Cc: dgy@rtd.com, joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: uucp uid's Message-ID: <199705310403.VAA29634@seagull.rtd.com> In-Reply-To: <199705310326.UAA13385@meerkat.mole.org> from "M.R.Murphy" at May 30, 97 08:26:03 pm
next in thread | previous 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. Yes, I currently have nuucp and xuucp sharing a uid. However, I had intended to indicate unique *uids* in the above statement. As in uhost1:900:... uhost2:901:... etc. > > 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! :> > > 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. Yes. And a good deal of the population doesn't have direct IP connectivity, etc. --don
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199705310403.VAA29634>