Subject: Re: PAM enabled on head
To: None <current-users@netbsd.org>
From: Christos Zoulas <christos@tac.gw.com>
List: current-users
Date: 03/08/2005 21:57:03
In article <20050309021949.GA1167@endersgame.net>,
Sean Davis  <dive-nb@endersgame.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Actually the breathalizer is a better example. It is required by law
>> on some states if you are caught DWI.
>
>Interesting implication. Are we being punished for authenticating without
>PAM?

It was tongue-in-cheek... Big brother knows better and chooses for you :-)

christos