From owner-cvs-libexec  Wed Aug  2 18:47:07 1995
Return-Path: cvs-libexec-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) id SAA10460
          for cvs-libexec-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 1995 18:47:07 -0700
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [192.216.222.226])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id SAA10446
          ; Wed, 2 Aug 1995 18:47:03 -0700
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id SAA05662; Wed, 2 Aug 1995 18:46:47 -0700
To: Paul Traina <pst@shockwave.com>
cc: paul@freebsd.org, jkh@freefall.cdrom.com, CVS-commiters@freefall.cdrom.com,
        cvs-libexec@freefall.cdrom.com
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/libexec/getty gettytab.5 main.c 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 02 Aug 1995 09:39:21 PDT."
             <199508021639.JAA12574@precipice.shockwave.com> 
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 1995 18:46:46 -0700
Message-ID: <5660.807414406@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: cvs-libexec-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> Actually, what we are arguing about is a philosophy.
> 
> Taken to an extreme, you can follow the sun philosophy and ship a
> unix system out of the box with "+" in /etc/host.equiv or you can
> take the approach that we should ship a system that is reasonably
> secure for someone to install out of the box on the net.

Yes, but we're not talking about such extremes of security abuse and
so this entire conversation is irrelevant.  You set up a straw man and
knock him down.  Well done.  But what does that have to do with
anything?

						Jordan