Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!cedman
From: cedman@lynx.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals
Subject: Re: Changing tty drivers (was Re: Finding Passwords)
Message-ID: <CEDMAN.90Oct17195500@lynx.ps.uci.edu>
Date: 18 Oct 90 02:54:55 GMT
References: <24752@adm.BRL.MIL> <1990Oct16.173128.7280@onion.pdx.com>
	<KGH600D@xds13.ferranti.com>
	<11552:Oct1721:36:1390@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Organization: non serviam
Lines: 28
Nntp-Posting-Host: lynx.ps.uci.edu
In-reply-to: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu's message of 17 Oct 90 21:36:13 GMT

After all the criticism that the idea of double-bell has gotten
here I think I'll have to defend it. It is quite a cute idea
and most criticism doesn't apply.

1. The problem with spoof programs which caused this solution
to be suggested is mainly a problem of publicly accessible
directly-connected terminals.

2. Such terminals are usually dumb, so that the problem of
messing up file transfer protocols really doesn't exists.
Dialup lines aren't (as much) threatened by this kind of
hack , so they of course don't get the double bell

3. What types of terminals there are is well known to those
who install double-bell protection, so that the problem
of ^G meaning anything else but bell on the particular
type of terminal used is really non-existent.

Summary: I think it is a good and simple idea, which (in contrast
to almost all other suggestions made in this group) actually
would work.

	Carl Edman

Theorectial Physicist,N.:A physicist whose   | Send mail
existence is postulated, to make the numbers |  to
balance but who is never actually observed   | cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu
in the laboratory.                           | edmanc@uciph0.ps.uci.edu