Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-lcc!styx!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!hplabs!decwrl!sun!gorodish!guy
From: guy%gorodish@Sun.COM (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: System V letting random users ch
Message-ID: <15295@sun.uucp>
Date: Thu, 19-Mar-87 02:39:54 EST
Article-I.D.: sun.15295
Posted: Thu Mar 19 02:39:54 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Mar-87 03:49:19 EST
References: <5026@brl-adm.ARPA>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Reply-To: guy@sun.UUCP (Guy Harris)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View
Lines: 17

>>There is no "newgrp" command in 4.[23]BSD; it's not needed.
>
>Only 16 -/- "newgrp" not needed.
>
>Really?

I know of nobody who has needed "newgrp" under 4.[23]BSD.  If you
have source, you could boost the maximum group set size; if you
don't, you might be able to get your vendor to do so.  64 wouldn't be
totally horrible (although you'd probably be advised to change the
algorithm for permissions checking, since you probably don't want to
linearly scan a 64-element list on every permissions check); if you
need to be in that many groups, maybe you should be thinking about
adding ACLs to your system instead....

Do you have any evidence to the contrary, or is this just
speculation?