From owner-freebsd-questions Fri Oct 31 13:53:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA07860 for questions-outgoing; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 13:53:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-questions) Received: from mail.netcetera.dk (root@sleipner.netcetera.dk [194.192.97.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA07847 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 13:52:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from leifn@swimsuit.roskildebc.dk) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by mail.netcetera.dk (8.8.7/8.8.7) with UUCP id WAA08831 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 22:49:41 +0100 Received: by swimsuit.roskildebc.dk (0.99.970109) id AA07043; 31 Oct 97 22:43:14 +0100 From: leifn@swimsuit.roskildebc.dk (Leif Neland) Date: 31 Oct 97 14:44:35 +0100 Subject: Re: Checking for concurrent logins Message-ID: <28e_9710312243@swimsuit.roskildebc.dk> References: Organization: Fidonet: UNIX-sysadm søger job To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk At 31 Oct 97 09:08:40 fullermd@futuresouth.com (2:234/49.99) wrote to Leif Neland regarding Re: Checking for concurrent logins in area "freebsd-questions" f> Just to add my $.02, I think disabling the account automatically f> in this sort of case is a Bad Idea. I've had cases where I've f> lost my connection, etc, and my previous session is still active f> when I get back on. Perhaps mailing the admin and mailing the f> user in question with a warning and request for explanation would f> be a good idea. Then again, I don't know your setup and f> environment, so I can't really judge. I made a script which said "You are already logged in on TTYxxx. Will you continue here?" Then depending on the answer, either this session or the other was terminated. This was under SVR3, and I don't have it available now. Leif Neland leifn@image.dk --- |Fidonet: Leif Neland 2:234/49 |Internet: leifn@image.dk