Xref: utzoo comp.unix.xenix:10171 comp.unix.i386:3037
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!motcsd!motsj1!mcdchg!chinet!randy
From: randy@chinet.chi.il.us (Randy Suess)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix,comp.unix.i386
Subject: Re: Using UUCP under a BBS system???
Message-ID: <1990Feb18.180120.22530@chinet.chi.il.us>
Date: 18 Feb 90 18:01:20 GMT
References: <1990Feb15.204106.8719@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
Reply-To: randy@chinet.chi.il.us (Randy Suess)
Organization: Chinet - Chicago Public Access UNIX
Lines: 21

In article <1990Feb15.204106.8719@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@mcs.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
]
]We used to run with a "chroot()"ed area.  So did Chinet, if I remember
]correctly.  Neither of us do now.  Hmmmm.... I don't know why Chinet stopped
]doing it, but I do know that disk consumption was part of the reason we
]quit.
]
	This was during the time of extreme security paranoia.  Chroot
	(under sysVr3.1 on a 3b2) worked out quite well, including
	a complete seperate set of /dev entries, links to most /usr stuff
	(/bin and /etc stuff had to be duplicated).  A number of programs
	were modified to work across the chroot partitions, including
	the conferencing system, and the party program.  Email was
	strictly within the chrooted area.
	It was finally removed due to other policy decisions, not because
	of unworkability.

	-randy
-- 
Randy Suess
randy@chinet.chi.il.us