From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Apr  3 13:47:47 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BD5137B401
	for <ports@freebsd.org>; Thu,  3 Apr 2003 13:47:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ints.mail.pike.ru (ints.mail.pike.ru [195.9.45.194])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA50843FD7
	for <ports@freebsd.org>; Thu,  3 Apr 2003 13:47:45 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from babolo@cicuta.babolo.ru)
Received: (qmail 25764 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2003 22:04:18 -0000
Received: from babolo.ru (HELO cicuta.babolo.ru) (194.58.226.160)
  by ints.mail.pike.ru with SMTP; 3 Apr 2003 22:04:18 -0000
Received: (nullmailer pid 928 invoked by uid 136);
	Thu, 03 Apr 2003 21:50:26 -0000
X-ELM-OSV: (Our standard violations) hdr-charset=KOI8-R; no-hdr-encoding=1
In-Reply-To: <3E8CA472.8070807@netli.com>
To: Lev Walkin <vlm@netli.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 01:50:26 +0400 (MSD)
From: "."@babolo.ru
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL99b (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Message-Id: <1049406626.887767.927.nullmailer@cicuta.babolo.ru>
cc: ports@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ipcad 2.8.1 bug: doesn't run with uid 0 which is needed for rsh
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 21:47:47 -0000

> .@babolo.ru wrote:
> >>
> >>=== quote ===
> >>Set this uid to be safe in the long run. Please change it if you're
> >>aware  of the consequences. RSH service will NOT work if process is
> >>not privileged.
> >>=== quote ===
> >>
> >>There are no words about configuring uid 0.
> >>
> >>Moreover, the sample configuration has uid and gid lines COMMENTED OUT.
> > 
> > 
> > I do not understand, why uid is artificially
> > restricted at 65535? Why not full 32 bit uid?
> 
> To encourage users think twice about using large ids for daemons.
Why?
Is warning better then refuse?
And option suppress warning.

Or let it for responsibility at all?