If I can just say one thing. For something that has been stated as not =
being important to ISP's, I think this list only goes to show everyone =
how important it is. I don't think I have seen so much Email related to =
one topic, for a long, long time. Debating is good, so I think it is a =
step in the right direction. What I fail to see, is Livingston's actual =
stance on this subject from Livingston themselves. And that, I would be =
very, very interested in. I think the consensus is, it's needed, maybe =
not by everyone, but I think enough, that it is definitely worth the =
interests of Livingston looking into. But then again, I'm not =
Livingston, but I am a buyer, and that should be somewhat important to =
them.
Shawn
---------------------------------------------
Shawn Lewis slewis@thecia.net
Sr Systems Engineer 617.225.4100 x122
Complete Internet Access, Inc
We Give Good Web!!!!
---------------------------------------------
----------
From: patrick@value.net[SMTP:patrick@value.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 1996 6:53 PM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: owen@delong.sj.ca.us; winter@jurai.net; =
portmaster-users@livingston.com
Subject: Re: NO multiple logins !! Livingston won't listen
On Wed, 26 Jun 1996, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > This is your opinion of the situation. I think most of the people=20
> > complaining would be happy with numeric limits, at least that is the =
> > impression I get.=20
> >=20
> The difference isn't the limits people want to set. It's how they =
want to
> enforce said limit. Some want to bill. Some want to nasty-gram.
> Some want an escalating nasty-gram -- nastier-gram -- kill policy.
> Some want to nuke the oldest session. Some want... The list goes
> on.
No, no, no. What you describe goes far beyond what I have seen requested =
for Livingston to implement. Disallow and bump are the two requests I=20
have seen. =20
> > > We shouldn't. However, it's _EASIER_ to implement this as a local =
site-
> > > specific solution. If you want to make it _EASY_ do it that way. =
Otherwise,
> > > accept that it's hard and bill.
> >=20
> > Easier for whom? Certainly not for me. It has taken me over a week =
straight=20
> > *with* consulting from William Bulley(one of the Merit engineers) to =
get=20
> > Merit up on my system. Multiple logins were not the only reason for =
the=20
> > switch, but hey, it would have been a lot easier to have had this =
support=20
> > in Livingstons code, and not to have had to make the switch. =20
> >=20
> Hmmm... Well I don't know what was special about your system, but you
> probably could have added this as a hack to the Livingston code in =
less
> than a week of a consultant's time.
Not a week of consulting, a week for me, with a couple of hours of=20
consulting time from William. The reason for the switch was =
functionality=20
lacking in Livingston's distribution, multiple login prevention only=20
being a portion of needed functionality.=20
> > Again, your view of the situation, not mine. Who said anything about =
a=20
> > 100 different authentication policies, besides you?
> >=20
> Don't remember exactly who, but I believe it was actually "100's" =
rather
> than "a hundred". However, if you just read what people have been =
asking
> for, you will find at least 5 different ways have been discussed in =
terms
> of WHAT to do when someone loggs in twice. Setting the limit is one =
problem.
> Detecting excess or attempted excess is problem two. What you do =
afterwards
> is problem 3. Problem 3 has a lot of differing opinions running =
around,
> and depending on your andwer to number 3, it has an impact on what's
> acceptable for 1 and 2.
Disallow and/or bump would seem to be the most portable and widely=20
desired methods. I haven't seen a bunch of requests for this extraneous=20
stuff which you mention as if it were requested just as much as disallow =
or bump.
> > > provides as such anyway. Thank god you aren't teaching a class on =
how
> > > to run an ISP.
> >=20
> > Gee I dunno, "Try to get base code to do what you want," vs. "hack =
your=20
> > own, which your vendor is not going to support" seems to be a better =
> > method of running an ISP.=20
> >=20
> So, tell me, are you running _ALL_ Stock drivers on your UNIX systems?
> You haven't added any third-party drivers to your NT systems (if you =
have
> any). Etc. Let's face it, I doubt you could effectively run an ISP on
> stock software.
NT? Yeachh. I have added software, I have changed kernel values, but I=20
haven't changed any drivers. 2000 people seem to think we are running =
ok. =20
> > > HA! This is a complicated enough issue that there's no easy way =
to explain
> > > all the tradeoffs in the different solutions that would have to be
> > > implemented. Sorry, but the way Livingston made their boxes easy =
to
> > > configure was by making them do a few things very well. RADIUS is =
not
> > > easy to configure. It's easy to clone RADIUS entries and modify =
them
> > > using a text editor if you know what you're doing. But Livingston =
has
> > > not done anything to make RADIUS easy to "configure". Why do you =
think
> > > this extension would be any different?
> >=20
> > RADIUS is *hard* to configure!? For whom?
> >=20
> Compare configuring a new user in RADIUS to adding a USER to the USER =
table
> using the X version of PMCONSOLE. Which one is easier?
>=20
>=20
> Now, take a local high school student who can debug a Windows box
> blindfolded with one hand tied behind his back. Put him in front of
> RADIUS and have him add a bunch of users without substantial training
> or support. Any bets? I bet he could configure a PortMaster easier.
You never said "Harder than XXXX." You stated RADIUS is "not easy to=20
configure," which, if you read the docs, is.
> > > And I have never disagreed with that. I have said that it should =
not get
> > > a higher priority than it has. I have never called anyone a =
luser.
> > > I suspect that your retort suffers from the same problem that my =
above
> > > statements do. Read enough mail messages about the same topic and =
you
> > > soon forget exactly who said exactly what.
> >=20
> > And if you would do the same, you would realize that I never accused =
you=20
> > of calling people lusers.
> >=20
> Huh? This sentence doesn't make sense to me.
>=20
> 1. I was saying that after so many messages I couldn't remember
> exactly who said exactly what.
Agreed.
>=20
> 2. I never called anyone a luser.
>
Agreed.
=20
> 3. I never accused you of claiming that I called anyone a luser.
By making the statement that you did not call anyone a luser, and then=20
stating my arguments seem to suffer from not knowing who said what, it=20
sure seems that way.=20
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/=
\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell (510) 943-5769 voice
Systems Administrator (510) 210-2000 modem
Value Net, Inc. (510) 943-1708 fax
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\=
/\/\/