From owner-freebsd-current Wed Oct 3 17:20:45 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mail.cicely.de (ppp99.uni-duisburg.de [134.91.19.99]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE57B37B406 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 17:20:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from ticso@localhost) by mail.cicely.de (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f940KYR01718; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 02:20:34 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 02:20:33 +0200 From: Bernd Walter To: Lyndon Nerenberg Cc: Nate Williams , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: uucp user shell and home directory Message-ID: <20011004022033.D110@cicely20.cicely.de> References: <200110032034.f93KYp8f031893@atg.aciworldwide.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200110032034.f93KYp8f031893@atg.aciworldwide.com>; from lyndon@atg.aciworldwide.com on Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 02:34:51PM -0600 X-Operating-System: NetBSD cicely20.cicely.de 1.5 sparc Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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