lock-up for lunch

[Robert Cohen]

In article <821 at gitpyr.UUCP>, myke at gitpyr.UUCP (Myke Reynolds) writes:
> In article <437 at aero.ARPA> sparker at aero.UUCP (Steve Parker) writes:
> >The posted lock-up programs are fine, but it would be really nice if
> >there were some modification that would ignore hangups, i.e. turn the
> >terminal off, then back on, and you are still logged in running the
> >security script.
> 
> System V: stty clocal
> Berkely: stty nohang
> -- 
> Myke Reynolds
Myke,
What happens if this is a dial-up line and you drop DTR is that
the next person dialing in who hits that port gets himself dropped
into your security program.  Granted he may not be able to break
out of it, so no security risk.  What a pain for that user though.
He has to busy out your clocal'ed port and dial again.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm getting tired of this
discussion anyway.  

FLAME ON
Also, my opinion (unsolicited) on the subject of tying up dial-up
ports with idle terminals is that this is, at best, a rude thing
to do.  Many systems operate with fewer ports than they might 
otherwise need, because the depend on only people doing real work
to be using the system during busy hours.  
No, I'm not a sys admin, but the systems I deal with at work
are administered by a pretty fair group of people.  If there
really aren't enough ports consistently, and those are actually
being _used_, then they'll find a way to add more.  But never
before trying to reduce the number of logins not doing real work.
Please, be considerate of other users.  Running this type of
program is just not fair play unless you have unlimited dcom
resources or local access.  As you can see from my ORGANIZATION,
I do know that data lines cost $$.   
FLAME OFF



Only I am (sometimes) responsible for my opinions.  
-- 
Robert Cohen
San Francisco, California
{ihnp4,dual,qantel}!ptsfa!rhc