From owner-freebsd-stable  Fri Apr 27  8:32:20 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from ptavv.es.net (ptavv.es.net [198.128.4.29])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A13FF37B422
	for <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 08:32:18 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from oberman@ptavv.es.net)
Received: from ptavv.es.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by ptavv.es.net (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f3RFWGc27936;
	Fri, 27 Apr 2001 08:32:16 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <200104271532.f3RFWGc27936@ptavv.es.net>
To: Bob K <melange@yip.org>
Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: secure-supfile ? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 27 Apr 2001 11:12:44 EDT."
             <Pine.BSF.4.21.0104271109570.74547-100000@pi.yip.org> 
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 08:32:15 -0700
From: "Kevin Oberman" <oberman@es.net>
Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

> Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 11:12:44 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Bob K <melange@yip.org>
> Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG
> 
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> 
> > Rules for files in /etc/defaults:
> > 1. Don't ever modify these files!
> 
> Just to emphasize this point, what if everything in /etc/defaults was made
> to be read-only and SCHG?

freebsd-questions would start getting 50-60 messages a day asking why
these files can't be edited. Making them '444' might be a good idea,
though. I just think schg is a bit too extreme.

R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab)
E-mail: oberman@es.net			Phone: +1 510 486-8634

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