From owner-freebsd-isp Tue Dec 3 16:18:33 1996 Return-Path: owner-isp Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id QAA23985 for isp-outgoing; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 16:18:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA23979 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 16:18:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.3/8.6.9) with ESMTP id QAA07883; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 16:18:28 -0800 (PST) To: Bradley Dunn cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ugh...long usernames In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 03 Dec 1996 13:56:44 EST." Date: Tue, 03 Dec 1996 16:18:28 -0800 Message-ID: <7879.849658708@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-isp@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > From discussions held on this matter in the past, my understanding is that > UT_NAMESIZE in and MAXLOGNAME in are the numbers to > change. So I change both of those numbers to 16, make the world, and hope > everything works. Any caveats? That is correct, and from what I've heard from others, it just seems to work. Maybe it's time for us to consider a new default? The fact that BSD/OS has upped this limit for awhile makes me think that we could probably get away with it as well, and I'd hate to be the last OS on the block with 8 character username limits - sort of like being the last OS with 14 character filename limits again, or something. :-) Jordan