The 'Security Digest' Archives (TM)

Archive: About | Browse | Search | Contributions | Feedback
Site: Help | Index | Search | Contact | Notices | Changes

ARCHIVE: 'Phage List' - Archives (1988 - 1989)
DOCUMENT: phage #233 [Unix security list] (1 message, 794 bytes)
SOURCE: http://securitydigest.org/exec/display?f=phage/archive/233.txt&t=text/plain
NOTICE: securitydigest.org recognises the rights of all third-party works.

START OF DOCUMENT

From: gatech!isis!aburt (Andrew Burt)
To: phage
Date: Thu 09:53:08 10/11/1988 EST
Subject: Unix security list
References: [Thread Prev: 228] [Thread Next: 234] [Message Prev: 225] [Message Next: 243]

Neil Gorsuch, Mark Verber and I are in the process of deciding which of
the multitude of lists should be kept around -- three seems a bit silly.

For those who want to read my views, see news.sysadmin, I've posted a
couple of messages there highlighting procedures and reasons behind how
the "old", now "reawakened" and "secure" Unix security list will operate.

In particular, if you were on it before, you should have receive a message
a short time ago saying not to reapply.  If you want to be on it, please
follow the instructions indicated in the postings for joining -- I haven't
the time to handle hundreds of private e-mail requests to join, and I'm
starting to get a lot of them.  (Volume of requests coming in was one of
the reasons the old list went dormant, and my solutions to the problem
will only work if everyone pitches in.)  Not to mention my mail box is
so overflowing with various things I'm likely to get to a join request
done the "official" way much faster than one sent to me personally.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation...

				Andrew

END OF DOCUMENT