From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Aug  8 06:11:39 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id GAA13033
          for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 06:11:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from labs.usn.blaze.net.au (mail@labs.usn.blaze.net.au [203.17.53.30])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA13022
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 06:11:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from labs.usn.blaze.net.au [127.0.0.1] (davidn)
	by labs.usn.blaze.net.au with esmtp (Exim 1.62 #1)
	id 0wwoia-0001kj-00 (Debian); Fri, 8 Aug 1997 23:04:36 +1000
To: Tom Samplonius <tom@sdf.com>
cc: Alan Batie <batie@aahz.jf.intel.com>, hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: login classes 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 07 Aug 1997 23:05:31 MST."
             <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970807225546.187B-100000@misery.sdf.com> 
X-Face: (W@z~5kg?"+5?!2kHP)+l369.~a@oTl^8l87|/s8"EH?Uk~P<Wc^}f75I|456ez/M
 E3OlD+ZL@c>#N+Ec~Z&@;'LL!;3?y<m[SK`'\R~Oe|(t-x+U@a%p!1_fZP0!Tb^?'%M1|"n9
 Fl{Ao~%X[Ec|bMlaN-3#x.e')nZ2/HHYSa2D[:bk#pj0(}\HpKeE}/GqUb3-1}lnUm6Et4?(
 gB5[*Z3Mu6o{Og.EJ))beY9oq9wcVU7_n}:I2JvCaa[5=&PI;x__["DL`uI}=s>
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 1997 23:04:36 +1000
From: David Nugent <davidn@labs.usn.blaze.net.au>
Message-Id: <E0wwoia-0001kj-00@labs.usn.blaze.net.au>
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> Do you have a comprehensive list of things that are setting the login
> class?

login, slogin (our port, anyway), rlogin, telnet (both via login), ftpd,
cron.

> > Hmm. Then there's the other tack that mail delivery will unnecessarily
> > fail because user resources are generally lower than the daemon class.
> 
>   Hmm, does mail delivery really require a lot of resources?

It isn't so much a "lot of resources", but the requirements may
be different. My point is that user-level resource allocation
may not be appropriate for processes that are delivering mail.
I'm open to argument on that one. :)

> > The only other area I am aware of where there is a 'hole' is at(1),
> > which is on the todo list. Other things keep cropping up and get
> > higher on the list. :)
> 
> Hmmm, doesn't wu-ftpd allow users to exec via "SITE EXEC"?  wu-ftpd
> isn't installed by default, but you have to vigilant.  I guess this is
> kinda of ports issue...

Yes, that's another one that seems to have slipped by. I'll add it.

Regards,
David