Xref: utzoo comp.unix.wizards:25217 alt.security:2348
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!ukc!strath-cs!str-va!cadp01
From: cadp01@vaxa.strath.ac.uk
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards,alt.security
Subject: Re: BSD tty security, part 3: How to Fix It
Message-ID: <1991Apr28.130739.11517@vaxa.strath.ac.uk>
Date: 28 Apr 91 13:07:39 GMT
References: <7299:Apr2510:22:2091@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <12535@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <15896:Apr2714:35:3991@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Organization: (Olav Kolbu), Strathclyde University
Lines: 59

In article <15896:Apr2714:35:3991@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>, 
brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:

[stuff deleted]
 
> 1. Do people think it's a problem that lines from ``write'' are not
> identified? If nothing else, I like the ability to carry on two or three
> write conversations at once without getting totally confused. If others
> don't like this, though, then I'll stop pushing for it.

Me too, but I would rather have it as an option (mesg i ?) instead of
being forced to see this identification on every line I get. That way you
would satisfy both parts. This should of course be at the recepient end. 
Would this be too messy?

> 2. Do people think it's a problem that someone can start a ``write'',
> then just type EOF or EOT to simulate ending it, then continue typing
> without identification? While most experienced users will guess exactly
> what's going on, novice users are really up the creek. Does anyone agree
> with Jef that it's ``disgusting'' to see
> 
> 	Message from operator@kramden on ttyp7 at 10:24 ...
> 	operator: this is where the text goes
> 	operator: and so on
> 	End of message from operator@kramden on ttyp7 at 10:25
> 
> instead of
> 
> 	Message from operator@kramden on ttyp7 at 10:24 ...
> 	this is where the text goes
> 	and so on
> 	EOF
> 
> Maybe I'm biased from my RELAY days, but I really find the first format
> more informative.

Some people want it and some don't, make it an option and keep everyone 
happy. I would have like a 'End of message from foo@bar on ...' instead
of the EOT/EOF but this would just have a purely informative purpose in a
system that didn't enforce identification of lines.

> 3. Do people think it's a problem that ``write'' can flood a terminal
> with output before the recipient has a chance to react? My version
> limits output to 500 characters per line and one line a second. Does
> anyone think that this affects legitimate uses of ``write''? If not, is
> there any harm in adding the protection against accidents and abuse?
> 
> ---Dan

If you want to give someone a piece of code or something similar over 
write, then one second per line might be a bit too much. Of course, the
identification on each line would already have messed it up so you couldn't
grab the lot with a mouse and store it somewhere without a search-and-
replace...

					OK

o.kolbu@uk.ac.strath.vaxa - Reverse where necessary.   Olav Kolbu
Life is full of standards, just grab one that suits you.