Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!CS.UCL.AC.UK!CHAA006%vaxb.rhbnc.ac.uk
From: CHAA006%vaxb.rhbnc.ac.uk@CS.UCL.AC.UK.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.computers.vax
Subject: (Sys$Sy)Login.Com
Message-ID: <8702121806.AA01436@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Thu, 12-Feb-87 14:06:20 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8702121806.AA01436
Posted: Thu Feb 12 14:06:20 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Feb-87 21:50:14 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 30
Approved: info-vax@sri-kl.arpa

>> I've come across two ways of handling login command files, and wonder whether
>> anyone knows a reason to prefer (or abhor) one or the other:

>>    1. SYS$SYLOGIN is defined to point to a system-wide login command
>>    procedure, which is thus invoked for all processes.  LGICMD (in the
>>    UAF) for each user is defined to point to the file LOGIN.COM in
>>    that user's home directory.

>>    2. SYS$SYLOGIN is undefined, but LGICMD for *all* users points to
>>    the system-wide login command procedure.  A line late in this command
>>    procedure checks to see if a user LOGIN.COM exists, and, if so,
>>    executes it.

>> As far as I can tell, these two methods are superficially equivalent...

I believe that the most significant difference is that (1) ensures that
SYLOGIN is _always_ elaborated for each user, whereas (2) permits the
user to suppress the elaboration of both SYLOGIN & LOGIN by specifying
/NOCOMMAND at the time of logging-in.  ** Phil.

Philip Taylor (Royal Holloway & Bedford New College;  University of London; U.K)

       Janet	    :	chaa006@uk.ac.rhbnc.vaxa (or) chaa006@uk.ac.rhbnc.vaxb
			([+Janet.000005181000] or [+Janet.000005181100])

       Arpa	    :	chaa006%vaxa.rhbnc.ac.uk@ucl-cs.arpa
       (or) 	    :	chaa006%vaxb.rhbnc.ac.uk@ucl-cs.arpa

Bitnet/NetNorth/Earn:	chaa006@vaxa.rhbnc.ac.uk (or) chaa006%rhbnc.vaxa@ac.uk
       (or)	    :	chaa006@vaxb.rhbnc.ac.uk (or) chaa006%rhbnc.vaxb@ac.uk