HP3000-L Archives

March 2000, Week 4

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Donna Garverick <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Donna Garverick <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 27 Mar 2000 16:35:11 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (33 lines)
hi all!

here's an interesting question (i hope :-)....

i'm wanting to setup a group (in the sys account) that only
'op' and 'sm' users have 'x'ecute access to but only 'sm'
users have all the other accesses to (particularily write).
i'm going to place command files in this group that are
meant for 'op' and 'sm' users only.  (wish i could control
listfile too <sigh>)  my intent is to 'unbundle' as many
(annoying) udc's as i can from the operator's udc file.
(ignoring the eight-character file limit <sigh>)  whatever
this group is, it would be added to 'op' and 'sm' users
hppath.

while i could front-end each command file with a hpusercapf
test, that creates a long-term maintenance issue....  if i
could invent my own capability (like (gee what letter
combinations are left?) 'zz'), i could give operator.sys and
manager.sys (and a few others...) 'zz' capability and set
all the group's access permission accordingly.

i guess acd's would work....but again there's that long term
maintenance issue....

any other ideas?             - d

--
Donna Garverick     Sr. System Programmer
925-210-6631        [log in to unmask]

>>>MY opinions, not Longs Drug Stores'<<<

ATOM RSS1 RSS2