|
Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Sun, 8 Aug 1999 11:28:40 -0700 |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII |
Reply-To: |
|
On Sun, 8 Aug 1999, Nathan Brindle wrote:
> That's dangerous. In some cases you might delete someone you didn't
> intend to delete with that construction. I admit we're probably talking
> extreme cases, but the fact remains that a delete for joe@*soft.com would
> not only delete [log in to unmask] and [log in to unmask], but also [log in to unmask],
> [log in to unmask], et cetera ad nauseum...when you do that sort of wildcard
> delete you might want to try it with the (TEST option first.
Thanks, I was going to sugest that you confirm who you are
deleting before using ANY wild card setting. I haven't done that myself,
so I don't know what the results are, but you will ``destroy'' settings if
you delete, and recreate a user, so it's worth testing first...
Jessica
--
Jessica Rasku, Box 270, Rossland, B.C., V0G 1Y0, (250) 362-5701,
LinuxBox: (250) 362-9668.
List manager: [log in to unmask]
send command help ---- To get help with majordomo
or lists ---- To get a list of all lists on server.
WWW: <http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Andes/8749>
|
|
|