Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 02:20:33 +0200 From: Bernd Walter <ticso@mail.cicely.de> To: Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@atg.aciworldwide.com> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: uucp user shell and home directory Message-ID: <20011004022033.D110@cicely20.cicely.de> In-Reply-To: <200110032034.f93KYp8f031893@atg.aciworldwide.com>; from lyndon@atg.aciworldwide.com on Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 02:34:51PM -0600 References: <nate@yogotech.com> <200110032034.f93KYp8f031893@atg.aciworldwide.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 02:34:51PM -0600, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: > > Do you mean 'full-time IP connectivity', because if you can setup a UUCP > > connection, you can just as easily setup a PPP connection over the same > > medium, giving you IP connectivity. > > True, but there's a lot more infrastructure overhead involved in > setting up a group of disconnected machines via dialup IP than > there is connecting them via UUCP. And where dialup time is precious > UUCP is the hands-down winner for not wasting any of that dialup > resource. > > > therefore doesn't belong in the mainstream release. It *is* still > > available as an add-on port, so those who need it can still get it > > So the base distribution contains /bin/sh, /sbin/init, and > /sbin/pkg_add? Me, I like my bikesheds painted in white and green > zebra stripes. > > > Finally, the security > > issues make it a non-starter to keep in the default distribution. > > I would like to see evidence of where --config is *required* to > make someone's UUCP setup work. And what percentage of the overall > UUCP user population are represented by those people? I still > contend the "problem" can be fixed by removing --config. While that > fix will apparently impact some people, the impact of that fix is > a lot lower than ripping out UUCP altogether. There are many other points - some examples I know of: The /var/spool/uucppublic which is writeable by everyone. Usually you don't want this. Ever received a mail with an envelope like "foo bar"@company.com? It's legal and sendmail accepts them - but rmail doesn't like the space as it gets to arguments out of it. This is maybe even exploitable. uux forwarding to a site with exact 8 letters in size doesn't work. Yes - tranditional sites are limited to 7 letters but users don't care. There is a port and thus packages will be build and you can install it whenever you need it. If you don't need it - which is the by far most common case - you don't want to see such a critical and unmaintained software installed. -- B.Walter COSMO-Project http://www.cosmo-project.de ticso@cicely.de Usergroup info@cosmo-project.de To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011004022033.D110>