Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!im4u!jsq
From: jsq@im4u.UUCP (John Quarterman)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: Symbolic user names and RFS
Message-ID: <788@im4u.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 2-Mar-86 12:10:23 EST
Article-I.D.: im4u.788
Posted: Sun Mar  2 12:10:23 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 4-Mar-86 03:13:13 EST
References: <674@oliveb.UUCP> <1246@ubc-ean.UUCP> <759@im4u.UUCP> <591@cheviot.uucp> <781@im4u.UUCP> <606@cheviot.uucp>
Reply-To: jsq@im4u.UUCP (John Quarterman)
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 25

In article <606@cheviot.uucp> ncx@cheviot.newcastle.ac.uk (Lindsay F. Marshall) writes:
>In article <781@im4u.UUCP> jsq@im4u.UUCP (John Quarterman) writes:
>>
>>Jumping to conclusions makes for good flames but not good discussions.
>>-- 
>
>What conclusions did I jump to??? I wasnt flaming, I was attempting to
>make a technical point - namely that the statement that a uid scheme
>such as yours was *imperative* for security was manifestly false.

The conclusions about what our uid scheme *is* which you jumped to.
I enumerated the problems in my last article.  Stop flaming long
enough to go read it.  Given Sun's NFS and only Sun's NFS, uniform
uids for all hosts using it are indeed bloody well imperative.

Once again:  we don't use RFS (neither of them), nor the Newcastle
Connection, nor V8.  I'm quite aware that all of them provide ways
of mapping user names into different uids across systems.  Sun's
NFS *DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY SUCH MECHANISM*!  If you want to argue
that that proves we should be using one of the others, I'll say you
may be right.  But stop trying to prove that we should be using a
mechanism which doesn't exist in the file system we're using.
-- 
John Quarterman, UUCP:  {gatech,harvard,ihnp4,pyramid,seismo}!ut-sally!im4u!jsq
ARPA Internet and CSNET:  jsq@im4u.UTEXAS.EDU, jsq@sally.UTEXAS.EDU