[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference noted::hackers_v1

Title:	-={ H A C K E R S }=-
Notice:	Write locked - see NOTED::HACKERS
Moderator:	DIEHRD::MORRIS

Created:	Thu Feb 20 1986
Last Modified:	Mon Aug 03 1992
Last Successful Update:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:	680
Total number of notes:	5456

93.0. "REMACP DECnet Object" by NANOOK::FOX () Mon Feb 11 1985 00:20

A friend of mine is a system manager on a *HEAVILY LOADED* VAX.  One 
thing that has been noticed is that people like to SET HOST 0 to avoid
a MICOM Switch with queues of 19!  He is therefore considering shutting
off REMACP to stop that.

Shutting off REMACP is an easy thing to do.  What we were wondering was
if there was an easy way to have an object connection to REMACP trigger a
command file or program that would say, nicely, that the remote terminal
access is shut off.  The error message that would result otherwise, could
generate more headaches for the system manager answering questions from
the users.  I've tried to create a command file that would send the message
to SYS$NET.  That got me a "Protocol not supported on remote node."  Am I
forgetting to do something?

	Anyone have any ideas?

	Thanks,

		David

T.R	Title	User	Date	Lines
93.1		HARE::STAN	`Mon Feb 11 1985 12:53`	5
	If you sent this message from a REMACP.COM file, then that is why you're getting the protocol not supported message. The guy talking to you is talking REMACP protocol and you're sending him back straight ASCII. You'll either have to talk REMACP protocol or find some other way to send this message.
93.2		HARE::STAN	`Mon Feb 11 1985 12:55`	2
	How about a check in the system login file - if the connection is remote and interactive, print a message and then LOGOUT.
93.3		SNOV10::QUODLING	`Mon Feb 11 1985 20:55`	3
	Why doesn't he get more micom ports, or better still a LAT! Q
93.4		KOALA::ROBINS	`Tue Feb 12 1985 12:31`	4
	re .2: that can be bypassed with "Username/co=not_the_system_login_file" Scott.
93.5		FDCV07::NORRIS	`Tue Feb 12 1985 12:46`	6
	Re -1. Set up the account captive and defcli. Ed
93.6		EAYV04::PETERM	`Sat Feb 16 1985 17:16`	7
	In a similar vein, I have no problem with people setting host to other machines on this site. But in allowing SET HOST <Ayr machine> I implicity allow SET HOST <New England> which I definitely do not want my users to do. Is there any way to limit this. Even being able to specify this area only would be an improvement. PeterM
93.7		FKPK::KONING	`Mon Feb 18 1985 20:34`	5
	If you don't put the nodenames into your database, you'd make it a lot harder (but not impossible). You could also define n000 logical names for all the "forbidden" nodes pointing off to something harmless. Paul
93.8		NUHAVN::CANTOR	`Sun Feb 24 1985 01:45`	6
	re .4, .5 If SYS$SYLOGIN is defined, a login attempt with /NOCOMMAND will NOT bypass the system-wide login file, whether or not the account is captive. Dave C.
93.9		JON::MORONEY	`Fri Mar 08 1985 10:31`	5
	What is the advantage of doing a set host 0 on a slow machine? Wouldn't the overhead of REMACP make things (slightly) worse? -Mike /\@@/\
93.10		FKPK::KONING	`Fri Mar 08 1985 12:09`	7
	If you use Set Host, your QIOWs to SYS$OUTPUT aren't made to wait until the last byte has been given to the terminal Mux, as is the case in the non-network mode. VMS unfortunately copied that design from RSX, and has been suffering from it evern since, or at least until V3. Did that finally get fixed in V4? I've heard rumors... Paul
93.11		SPRITE::OSMAN	`Tue Apr 23 1985 15:44`	20
	The very first message in this note confuses me. The writer says users are saying SET HOST 0 to avoid the crowded MICOM. I don't understand. Perhaps the writer meant to say users are saying SET HOST X from some other system "Y" ? It seems to me that "SET HOST 0" can't possibly help, since you're already logged in, and hence why bother SETting host at all ? Just get to work! Confused, /Eric
93.12		VIKING::WASSER_1	`Tue Apr 23 1985 17:45`	10
	re. .11: I think the person recommending "SET HOST 0" may have desired to use several accounts on the same machine. This method gives you owner access to your other account without forcing you to log off and face a crouded teminal switch. I don't know if "SET HOST 0" is better than "SET HOST node" where "node" is your current node name. Is there a special case for "0" where the login does not have to go through DECnet? -John A. Wasser
93.13		PARVAX::PFAU	`Tue Apr 23 1985 21:47`	4
	0 just means the current node. If I'm on PARVAX, there's no difference whether I type SET HOST 0 or SET HOST PARVAX. tom p