From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Feb 20 16:58:40 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id QAA20700
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 1996 16:58:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from baygull.rtd.com (baygull.rtd.com [198.102.68.5])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA20695
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 20 Feb 1996 16:58:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from news@localhost) by baygull.rtd.com (8.6.9/8.6.9.1) id RAA06705; Tue, 20 Feb 1996 17:58:25 -0700
To: hackers@freebsd.org
Path: freefall.freebsd.org!owner-freebsd-hackers
From: freebsd@xaa.stack.urc.tue.nl ("Mark Huizer")
Newsgroups: rtd.freebsd.hackers
Subject: Re: pop3 and blocked users
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 22:59:04 +0100 (MET)
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <199602202159.WAA00598@xaa.stack.urc.tue.nl>
NNTP-Posting-Host: seagull.rtd.com
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> Shouldn't pop implementation check if users are having a shell not
> listed in /etc/shells? Otherwise, blocked users will stil be able to
> recieve mail..

Well... it's quite simple to change that. I just did it for my computing
society. Simply check it in pop_pass.c and give a POP_FAILURE.
But I feel a bit funny about it. When I had a machine with pop-accounts, I
could imagine WANTING to give ppl a non-existant shell, so they can only
access mail.
Another thing I am going to do tomorrow or something is changing it
so it won't give an error when the blocked user is connecting. It would
be even better if it would standard generate a mailbox containing of
only 1 message telling that the *()^^&* user is blocked and should take
some serious action in stead of trying to read mail
> 
> -Guido
> 
Mark