The following reply was made to PR bin/32903; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: jnemeth@victoria.tc.ca (John Nemeth)
To: gnats-bugs@NetBSD.org, gnats-admin@NetBSD.org,
	netbsd-bugs@NetBSD.org, i18rabbit@cwazy.co.uk
Cc: 
Subject: Re: bin/32903 (utmp remains empty)
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 01:42:12 -0700

 On Jan 23,  2:47am, i18rabbit@cwazy.co.uk wrote:
 }
 } The following reply was made to PR bin/32903; it has been noted by GNATS.
 } 
 } From: i18rabbit@cwazy.co.uk
 } To: gnats-bugs@NetBSD.org
 } Subject: Re: bin/32903 (utmp remains empty)
 } Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2006 12:48:04 GMT
 } 
 }  i disagree - there was no user error
 
      Actually, it is a user error.
 
 }  in reporting this bug.  a solution was
 
      There is no bug.  The lack of pam_lastlog in your custom pam.conf
 is the source of your problem.
 
 }  prevented by addressing the problem
 }  with indolent/non-sensical replies
 
      Having looked up the meaning of indolent, I am going to disagree.
 If you read the e-mail closely, you will see that the answer to your
 problem was given three days after you filed the PR.  Furthermore, this
 was after much prodding to find out about changes that you made to the
 system.  It is quite evident that you broke the system with your
 changes (see above).  Also, in context (i.e not knowing about your
 custom modifications), the answers you receieved were completely
 sensical (with the one exception where somebody made a mistake and gave
 information on wtmp instead of utmp).
 
 }  which amounted to a huge waste of
 }  time and no resolution.
 
      The huge waste of time was caused by you not telling us about the
 changes that you made to the system and by you not properly testing
 your changes before filing a bug report for a problem that was caused
 by said changes.  A resolution was provided, namely fix your pam.conf.
 
 }-- End of excerpt from i18rabbit@cwazy.co.uk