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