Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!unido!fauern!immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de!eckert From: eckert@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Toerless Eckert) Newsgroups: news.misc Subject: Re: Distributed Filesystems vs. NNTP at large sites. Message-ID: <509@medusa.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Date: 28 Sep 89 12:44:42 GMT References:Organization: IMMD IV, University of Erlangen, W-Germany Lines: 26 From article , by karl@godiva.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste): > Our biggest problem with NNTP reading is > that the granularity with which one can define limited-access > newsgroups (by chmod'ing the spool directory) is only per-machine > instead of per-newsgroup, as we have with NFS. This is not true. You can define access to a newsgroup per-machine, and per-newsgroup. default read xfer ,!secret trusted read xfer Which will restrict access to the secrat.all hierachy to machines on the network (or machine trusted, whatever trusted is a name for). What you cannot do with NNTP is restrict access per-user, but given that user mapping with NFS is usually consistent only over a small set of machines, and you want to use your server for a larger set of machines, this is really not a point for NFS (I am not talking about athena or the like). Also restricting access per user works correctly only with B-news 3.0. Toerless Eckert X.400: RFC822: eckert@informatik.uni-erlangen.de UUCP: {pyramid,unido}!fauern!eckert BITNET: tte@derrze0