Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site elsie.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!sdcsvax!bmcg!cepu!trwrba!trwrb!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!elsie!ado
From: ado@elsie.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: Auto-logoff facility in Unix
Message-ID: <895@elsie.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 4-May-84 11:18:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: elsie.895
Posted: Fri May  4 11:18:07 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 7-May-84 05:32:33 EDT
References: <379@hcrvax.UUCP>, <1209@brl-vgr.ARPA>, <885@elsie.UUCP>, <1260@brl-vgr.ARPA>
Organization: NIH-LEC, Bethesda, MD
Lines: 21

brl-vgr!gwyn--
>	Our version of the Bourne shell will timeout the user if he (sic)
>	doesn't respond to a PS1 prompt within a specified amount of time. . .
>	The intention is to terminate the shell on an "abandoned" terminal, like>	when a fellow (sic) goes home for the day and forgot to log out	first.

elsie!ado--
>	Would requiring users to type in their passwords (rather than logging
>	them out) be preferable in a set-up like this?

brl-vgr!gwyn--
>	No, asking for password again rather than logging out is not suitable
>	for our environment (OS ports are a scarce commodity and we have to
>	freeup an idle line so the queued-up users can get through the port
>	contention switch).  I also don't think the shell has any business
>	asking for your password.

Thanks to gwyn for the added information about the purpose of the TIMEOUT stuff.
A question:  how is it that we decide that logging off users after a time IS
the shell's business while asking for your password is not?
--
	decvax!harpo!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!elsie!ado	(301) 496-5688