| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 8604.1 | | NETRIX::"[email protected]" | Ann Majeske | Wed Jan 29 1997 18:03 | 25 |
| This is not the proper forum for URGENT problems or requests. If you have
an URGENT problem you should escalate an IPMT case. For an URGENT request,
you can contact Digital UNIX product management, but you have to realize that
Digital UNIX has a LONG development cycle, so if you request functionality
now, it may be available a year from now, or it may not.
POP is not developed as part of Digital UNIX, it is merely ported to work on
it. It appears that the version distributed with V4.0 wasn't properly
ported, or it would at least support Enhanced Security. You could try
entering an IPMT against POP because it doesn't support Enhanced Security,
but I think you'll find that currently it is being supplied "as is" as a
convenience to our customers, but it is not actively supported. I also
doubt you are going to be able to find a version of POP that works with
100000 users on Digital UNIX before Digital UNIX works with 100000 users.
Enhanced Security is an integral part of the Digital UNIX operating system,
so of course the number of user accounts supported by Enhanced Security will
be the same as the number of accounts supported by Base security.
I don't know your level of experience, but you could always try obtaining
the source for a version of POP from somewhere (I believe that Qualcomm's
version is public domain), and modifying it yourself to do what you URGENTly
need. You're much more likely to be successful doing that than you are
entering an URGENT message in this notes file.
[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]
|
| 8604.2 | Some information and Thanks. | NETRIX::"[email protected]" | Manuel Garrido | Fri Jan 31 1997 04:32 | 13 |
| Sorry about the "urgent" header.
And thank you for your helpful explanations (I am new at DEC).
To whom may interest:
- There already exists a beta-patch for 100.000 accounts for Digital Unix 4.0
(to
be released about March-April).
- Although, a popper we have tried (from Washington) seems to work fine
having duplicated UIDs, in order to reach the 100.000 accounts.
- The Qualcomm popper is ported to our C2 security environment, and includes
UIDL function to preserve messages in the server.
- The IMAP4 from Washington seems to be ported to our C2 too.
Bye.
[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]
|
| 8604.3 | | BIGUN::nessus.cao.dec.com::Mayne | Wake up, time to die | Sun Feb 02 1997 21:37 | 15 |
| > You could try
> entering an IPMT against POP because it doesn't support Enhanced Security,
> but I think you'll find that currently it is being supplied "as is" as a
> convenience to our customers, but it is not actively supported.
When I asked why other shells (e.g. bash) weren't thrown in with Digital UNIX,
7581.1 said:
> There's another reason: if it's part of the operating system, we support it
> (yes, even if it's something freely available like EMACS).
This doesn't match with the above statement from .1.
PJDM
|
| 8604.4 | | NETRIX::"[email protected]" | Ann Majeske | Mon Feb 03 1997 10:39 | 16 |
| Re .3
You'll notice in .1 that I wrote "I think you'll find" not "I know". I wrote
it that way for a reason. I think (again, I'm not 100% sure) that there is
not
an official policy to support all applications that are ported to and released
with Digital UNIX, especially those on the layered product CD. I suspect
that each group, or even each person has their own policy and that some will
fix some bugs and others won't.
I know that I personally have tried to convince some of the people responsible
for porting some of these applications to make changes that I consider to be
bug fixes and I was refused in at least one case.
[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]
|
| 8604.5 | | GERUND::WOLFE | I'm going to huff, and puff, and blow your house down | Tue Feb 04 1997 11:34 | 18 |
| >- There already exists a beta-patch for 100.000 accounts for Digital Unix 4.0
> (to be released about March-April).
This is not what you think it is. This patch was an experimental patch
for a specific customer that needed a large UID space (i.e. they wanted
to use employee badge numbers as UIDs) and NOT a large number
of UIDs themselved (i.e. no where near 100K accounts).
I think there are several scalability issues that still need to be
resolved before 100K accounts are practical. Specifically, I thought
the base system hashed password database had problems when scaling
up this high. C2 security systems also have problems.
The point is that there is a scalability project to address issues like this
but it's not the same thing as the large UID support. That's just
one aspect of scalability.
pete
|