RE: NO multiple logins !! Livingston won't listen

Owen DeLong (owen@delong.sj.ca.us)
Thu, 27 Jun 1996 08:50:45 -0700

> Well,
>
> 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.

(The = signs were created by slewis using QUOTED ASCII for a text message...
blech!)

1. Most of the mail has been people trying to make sure this problem
doesn't get viewed as more important than existing priorities.

2. Livingston has stated it's position on this on the list at least
twice since this debate started.

3. Since you apparently missed posts from both MZ and GRYPHON, I will
summarize for you:

"People want it. We will implement it one of these days. In the meantime,
we want people to realize that doing this right and in a generic manner
is not trivial and will require a substantial engineering effort. This
problem can be solved easily in a site-specific manner by applying local
hacks. As such, we reccommend that people use that approach for now or
a third party RADIUS server. Otherwise, there is the option of parsing the
accounting data for simultaneous logins and charging the customer accordingly."

Owen