From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jun 30 18:39:21 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BC1C16A4CE
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>;
	Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:39:21 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from web50305.mail.yahoo.com (web50305.mail.yahoo.com
	[206.190.38.59])	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D04F043D48
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>;
	Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:39:20 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from murcielako@yahoo.com)
Message-ID: <20040630183858.24645.qmail@web50305.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [200.116.92.88] by web50305.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP;
	Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:38:58 CDT
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:38:58 -0500 (CDT)
From: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Jorge=20Mario=20G.?=" <murcielako@yahoo.com>
To: Remko Lodder <remko@elvandar.org>
In-Reply-To: <40E2FD7A.9050608@elvandar.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
cc: mlaier@FreeBSD.org
cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: "user/group _pflogd:_pflogd" what's with the _ ?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:39:21 -0000

> pflogd from OpenBSD is built to use _pflogd as user
> (and group i thought).
> 
> Can you tell us what you mean with "our" point of
> view, are we talking 
> about a huge group? or your individual opinion
> (that's usefull for 
> seeing if many people complain or only a few).
> 
> I personally think that's nicer to have _daemonuser
> so that all daemon users are directly visible from
> output's.
> It's also a safety measure, one can have _pflogd as
> the pflogd user, and 
> pflogd as a reporting user that does cronjobs or
> something. That way the 
> access they both have is restricted. Which cannot be
> done if you have 
> users named the same (pflogd both).
> 
> Another thing that i personally think is that these
> are also understandable
> 
> _daemon => hey a daemon process that perhaps needs
> to be kicked since 
> it's suckedup all CPU (memory leak's, something
> else?)
> daemon => hey a bogus username that sucks up 99% of
> the CPU running eh 
> dnetc (for example)
> 
> But then again, it remains my personall opinion,
> again, i am PRO _daemon 
> names
hi there
when I said "our" becuase we were having a discusion
about it, here at our local university, we saw that it
saves work to mlaier and we also noticed the why of
the _. anyway a firewall is most likely to not have a
lot of users so finding conflicting user should be
pretty easy. it's no biggie anyway :)

PS: oh and sorry I wasnt following
freebsd-current@freebsd.org until today. and I know I
should have searched on the mailling lists db. my bad

Jorge

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Información de Estados Unidos y América Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias.
Visítanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com