|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 103 responses total. |
mdw
|
|
response 75 of 103:
| 
Sep 20 06:59 UTC 1995 |
Any root can say "passwd -d so-so" to get rid of so-so's password.
It should not trash the password file. It may or may not do what you want.
|
ajax
|
|
response 76 of 103:
|
Sep 20 18:55 UTC 1995 |
Would it work when "so-so" isn't there, to change it to a null password?
|
scg
|
|
response 77 of 103:
|
Sep 21 05:17 UTC 1995 |
I would have to read the man pages for passwd to be sure, but it looked to
me from what Marcus said as if "so-so" was the login, as in "guest" and the
-d switch would get rid of the password. Was I reading that right?
|
popcorn
|
|
response 78 of 103:
|
Sep 21 13:56 UTC 1995 |
That's how I read it, too. Shall I go ahead and try it?
|
ajax
|
|
response 79 of 103:
|
Sep 21 17:07 UTC 1995 |
Ah, I get it. Actually, the guest accounts were reaped some time ago.
I can set them up again, but I'm not sure the idea has enough staff
support to see this through to completion. The spec I proposed was
fairly simple, but did require a program change by someone with root,
along with a couple config/text file changes. Also, some staff-folk
wanted to add more complicated changes like restricting out-bound mail.
No bad idea, but it sounds like the kind of thing that's unlikely to
be done anytime soon. If the board and staff want to go with something
like the original proposal, I don't think it would take more than a
couple hours of staff time to make the minimally required changes, and
I think that would be feasible (one staffer offered help pending
discussion with others).
|
ajax
|
|
response 80 of 103:
|
Sep 21 20:00 UTC 1995 |
Actually, come to think of it, I know I tried passwd -d <name> at
the time, and it didn't accept that syntax...I thought Valerie tried
it as root, but I'm not as sure of that. I figured the man page and
passwd programs were out of synch. On the other hand, /usr/bin/passwd
has been updated since I last tried it. I'd be curious if some rootly
person could try nulling their normal password, then resetting it if
it worked.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 81 of 103:
|
Sep 22 14:27 UTC 1995 |
Re 79: I'm still interested in guest accounts.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 82 of 103:
|
Sep 22 14:30 UTC 1995 |
Yes! If you run it as root, "passwd -d <userid>" works!
(I tried it on another account, not mine.) Cool!
|
scg
|
|
response 83 of 103:
|
Sep 23 05:44 UTC 1995 |
<scg hopes it wasn't one of his accounts> ;)
|
adbarr
|
|
response 84 of 103:
|
Dec 3 00:02 UTC 1995 |
The following dispatch is issued from the Grexbunker: Attention! HVCN intends
to establish a demonstration public terminal at the Ypsilanti District Library
in the reasonably near future -- a few short months - several weeks - but
"soon". We have much to do before that is done. When it is ready, however,
I would very much like to see Grex guest accounts available from that
terminal, as well as HVCN accounts. Is it possible to revive this concept
somehow? My impression is that this has just sort of faded into the sunset.
If it is not possible or desireable that is ok. If it is something still
simmering, I would like to start some discussion on the best way to implement
the access from the YDL. <blast doors close, periscope up>
|
mdw
|
|
response 85 of 103:
|
Dec 3 08:15 UTC 1995 |
Is there some reason you don't want to invite people to just
run newuser or their real accounts? What is this terminal for
anyways?
|
ajax
|
|
response 86 of 103:
|
Dec 5 07:16 UTC 1995 |
I'm still interested in a creating a guest account. But while there
was general support for "the spirit" of a guest account, people have
different opinions of what features a guest account must have. Some
of the features people want are rather time-consuming to implement,
so I don't think they'll get done. Example issues are whether guest
account users should be able to send e-mail off-site, or be able to
run any public program.
If I were to re-propose a guest account at a board meeting, giving
the specific features, do people think the board could give a definite
yes or no to it? I still think a rather minimalist account would be
worth a try.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 87 of 103:
|
Dec 5 07:53 UTC 1995 |
The board would consider it... B^?. But, why not put forward your
proposal here now? It would save some discussion of options for specific
features.
|
scott
|
|
response 88 of 103:
|
Dec 5 11:59 UTC 1995 |
I can't remember the details of the discussion, but my main concern would be
"what state would the previous user leave the account in?"
|
popcorn
|
|
response 89 of 103:
|
Dec 5 16:57 UTC 1995 |
It wouldn't be hard to set up guest accounts that are completely reset
when each new user logs in.
|
ajax
|
|
response 90 of 103:
|
Dec 6 09:01 UTC 1995 |
My proposal hasn't changed much since last go-round, which was
in /u/ajax/guest_acct_description (2/1/95). The arguments for and
against are probably about the same, too. I think the biggest
opposition was to guests sending mail off-site. (I wouldn't mind
seeing that ability disabled, but don't see it as a necessity).
The prototype guest account copied all its config files over from
a 'master' account each time the user logged in, replacing login
files, bbs files, the mail spool, etc. I don't think resetting it
is difficult.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 91 of 103:
|
Dec 9 05:46 UTC 1995 |
is "guest" the right name for such an account?
|
popcorn
|
|
response 92 of 103:
|
Dec 9 06:40 UTC 1995 |
Yes: it's used on lots of other systems. A fair number of people try logging
on to Grex as "guest" every day.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 93 of 103:
|
Dec 9 23:51 UTC 1995 |
How about testdriv?
As a name to the account, I mean.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 94 of 103:
|
Dec 10 17:10 UTC 1995 |
Well, but how would new people know to log in as "testdriv"?
Lots of them figure out to use "guest" since it's used everywhere.
|
steve
|
|
response 95 of 103:
|
Dec 10 18:08 UTC 1995 |
Guest makes a lot of sense. Other systems have used this name,
and it seems to me to be the most established 'test' type of account.
|
steve
|
|
response 96 of 103:
|
Dec 10 18:10 UTC 1995 |
I just reserved 'guest' such that the account will be available
for this. Even if we don't do this, keeping guest reserved might
make sense?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 97 of 103:
|
Dec 10 19:26 UTC 1995 |
I'm surprised that guest wasn't already an account.
|
steve
|
|
response 98 of 103:
|
Dec 11 02:11 UTC 1995 |
Well, we've had four 'guest' accounts, with UID's 1645, 3406, 12518
and 23292. Glad I got it this time 'round.
|
scg
|
|
response 99 of 103:
|
Dec 11 06:00 UTC 1995 |
Wasn't one of the earlier ones Rob's prototype?
|