Subject: Re: `safety'(?) patch for finger/fingerd.
To: matthew green <email@example.com>
From: Michael K. Sanders <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/08/1997 23:23:03
In message <199709081751.LAA10345@mars.aros.net>, matthew green writes:
>finger when it calls it, and finger will not show non-realname
>gecos information if called with the `-g' switch.
I hate to bring this up just after you've commited it-- this
sounds like a useful feature, but...
>my reasoning for this is as follows:
> - local users may want other local users to know about
> - local users may want _non_ local users _not_ to know
> about themselves.
If this is really a policy for local users to determine, as
these reasons seem to imply, wouldn't it make more sense to
make it controllable on a per user basis? Maybe something
similar to the -N flag to identd(8) checking for '$HOME/.noident',
though I'd prefer to see the default be to NOT show the non-realname
gecos info, though.
> - the administrator may want to provide finger service
> for various reasons.
It might be more useful if users can make the determination for
providing non-realname gecos info on an individial basis rather than
as a blanket effect, if so configured by the administrator.
Any other thoughts?
:: Mike ::