Re: sigh

On 03/11/2010 4:07 PM, Erwin wrote:
> On 3 nov, 02:12, paul c<anonym..._at_not-for-mail.invalid> wrote:
>
>> maybe this is why more and more ISP's and other
>> organizations are dropping their NNTP support.
>
> Maybe this is the very same reason why end-users should stop relying
> on information that has been passed onto them by any RFC protocol that
> is below 8192 ?
> ...

Never heard of that one, the only bell 8192 rings is that I usually got myself tied into knots whenever I exceeded two base registers. OTOH, I got one job because I knew how to use more than one.

> But hey then again I am biased. I am an ACF2 guy who got to
> understand why RACF is bad stuff to trust...
> ...

And here I thought you were just a kid (albeit a smart one). Or maybe there are still some kids who go into that arcane stuff, if I knew any I'd try to discourage them!

> The three pillars of security, you know, proper identification, proper
> authentication,and proper authorization ...
>
> (With 'proper authorization' amounting to the set of {'proper
> identification', 'proper authentication'} being properly applied to
> both 'available resources' and 'available manipulators'.)

The ORANGE book stuff was just to disguise a game vendors had to play in order to sell to the US federal gov't. At one job, I worried about satisfying it until a boss clued me in, assured me that our very simple mechanisms would be proved to gov't satisfaction by our many marketing people. A real nightmare was trying to get rid of a sysprog who put SMF hooks into a lock manager! Probably his next idea would have been to put security hooks into it as well. No idea if the ORANGE book is still mandated but I still think relational data modelling could have made it more comprehensible, useful and simple.

If there is nothing more in the db theory field to talk about, maybe this group will start to cover the stuff that a.f.computers used to cover, just joking (a little). Maybe Lynn W will jump in here. Received on Thu Nov 04 2010 - 01:47:19 CET