From owner-freebsd-isp  Tue Oct  8 04:32:32 1996
Return-Path: owner-isp
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id EAA20407
          for isp-outgoing; Tue, 8 Oct 1996 04:32:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tbd.gfoster.com ([204.157.123.237])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id EAA20384;
          Tue, 8 Oct 1996 04:32:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from gfoster@localhost) by tbd.gfoster.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id HAA07442; Tue, 8 Oct 1996 07:31:45 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 07:31:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Glen Foster <gfoster@gfoster.com>
Message-Id: <199610081131.HAA07442@tbd.gfoster.com>
To: Jos.Vissers@telebyte.nl
CC: michael@memra.com, questions@freebsd.org, isp@freebsd.org
In-reply-to: <199610080912.LAA32726@monet.telebyte.nl> (message from Jos Vissers on Tue, 8 Oct 1996 11:12:10 +0200 (MET DST))
Subject: Re: User name length limit increase
Sender: owner-isp@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Well, the obvious thing that jumps out here is to extend aliasing
capabilities to authentication as well as mail.  It seems that this
might be more easily done than wholesale conversion to long user
names.  Why shouldn't you have as many names for a user as you can
stand (without additional entries in /etc/passwd)?  The system would
report the unique eight character passwd userid in the "who utilities"
and logs reducing the need to deal with formatting issues.

Of course that is yet another database in /etc that would have to be
maintained but it could be optional.  I'm sure there are other issues
that would have to be addressed but it would be pretty useful.

Glen Foster <gfoster@gfoster.com>

>From: Jos Vissers <Jos.Vissers@telebyte.nl>
>Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 11:12:10 +0200 (MET DST)
>Cc: questions@freebsd.org, isp@freebsd.org
>
>We already have sendmail looking in a userdb for mail aliases and shadow
>domains but some users just can't be made to understand that their
>username is not the same as their email address.
>
>Jos