Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!eecae!netnews.upenn.edu!rutgers!bellcore!texbell!uhnix1!sugar!karl
From: karl@sugar.uu.net (Karl Lehenbauer)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers
Subject: Re: administration fascism
Message-ID: <3376@sugar.uu.net>
Date: 1 Feb 89 13:12:58 GMT
References: <412@execu.UUCP> <7094@xanth.cs.odu.edu> <412@avsd.UUCP> <2253@unmvax.unm.edu>
Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston, TX
Lines: 16

In article <2253@unmvax.unm.edu>, mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) writes:
> Hmmm...I disagree.  We are an "enlightened" site which lets people edit 
> /usr/lib/aliases.  If someone f*cks up, then we have the simple solution
> of asking "who changed the XXX alias to YYY?" and then we can explain to
> them the necessity of being more careful in the future.

Thus the cost of providing the flexibility of letting people edit 
/usr/lib/aliases is that, when they screw up, mail screws up -- sometimes
a little, sometimes a lot.  I don't know if I would call this policy 
"enlightened."  I would say it balances things a little more toward 
ease-of-use at the cost of reducing reliability.  Why do they need to
edit /usr/lib/aliaes anyway?  How often does this happen?
-- 
-- uunet!sugar!karl  | "We've been following your progress with considerable 
-- karl@sugar.uu.net |  interest, not to say contempt."  -- Zaphod Beeblebrox IV
-- Usenet BBS (713) 438-5018