home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.security.misc
- Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!psuvax1!schwartz
- From: schwartz@roke.cs.psu.edu (Scott Schwartz)
- Subject: Re: unhappy about overloading finger
- In-Reply-To: ggm@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au's message of Tue, 21 Jul 1992 03:47:38 GMT
- Message-ID: <Brrsn4.7sx@cs.psu.edu>
- Sender: news@cs.psu.edu (Usenet)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: roke.cs.psu.edu
- References: <ggm.711690458@brolga>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 04:05:49 GMT
- Lines: 7
-
- ggm@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au (George Michaelson) writes:
- To cover ourselves, we are increasingly using callback checks to
- have trace on who fingers us.
-
- As long as you trust the other machine to tell you anything, why not
- require that they use RFC 931 style authentication?
-
-