From owner-freebsd-current  Fri Jan  3 15:15:12 1997
Return-Path: <owner-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA19376
          for current-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 15:15:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from precipice.shockwave.com (ppp-206-170-6-205.rdcy01.pacbell.net [206.170.6.205])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id PAA19333;
          Fri, 3 Jan 1997 15:14:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shockwave.com (localhost.shockwave.com [127.0.0.1]) by precipice.shockwave.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA24528; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 15:12:36 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199701032312.PAA24528@precipice.shockwave.com>
To: proff@suburbia.net
cc: phk@critter.dk.tfs.com, jkh@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: utmp changes 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 04 Jan 1997 08:57:38 +1100."
             <19970103215738.24314.qmail@suburbia.net> 
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 1997 15:12:36 -0800
From: Paul Traina <pst@shockwave.com>
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Agreed, 100%.

Unfortunately, we're also stuck with the fact that it's an API of
a sick and twisted sort (if we weren't, we wouldn't be in the mess we're
in today).

I think the right thing(tm) to do is to toss together an extensible
formal API to the "session database" and see if we can get the BSD and
linux folks to agree to it.  Then, it doesn't matter how we actually
implement it.

Of course, getting people to agree to squat these days is damn near impossible.(Which is why I was being conservative and just stealing from Linux and BSD).

Sigh.
.

  From: proff@suburbia.net
  Subject: Re: utmp changes
  >   From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.dk.tfs.com>
  >   Subject: Re: utmp changes 
  >   
  >   No what I wanted was a space for the key-name for ssh and a flag for the
  >   fact that the session is encrypted.
  
  [..]
  
  The whole utmp idea is stupid dreadful hack.
  
  session-info-fs anyone?