On Sun, 29 Jun 1997, Norm Aleks wrote: > David R Nessl <[log in to unmask]> writes: > > > An even simpler alternative would be to put the per-user directory > > > somewhere that the users can't access at all. > > > > How? If end-users own the files (in order to get the charging right), > > then because of the single directory tree in Unix those files will > > always be a accessible by the owners. > > You're making things complicated by accounting only by file ownership. > Why not just make a special case for LISTSERV? Keep list-related files > in directories segregated by user, but owned entirely by LISTSERV. Forgive me if I am being stupid here, but would it not be easier altogether if the system administrator kept a record of who owns which lists and simply charges using the fact that all files associated with a list are called LISTNAME.* On a unix based system, the command "ls -l LISTNAME.*" would return the list of files complete with their sizes. Or if you were only charging for log files, you would use "ls -l LISTNAME.LOG*". As only the site maintainers can create lists or enable the Notebook= keyword, they can keep track of who owns what by making records as they go along. John -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- John Asher Stage 3 MBBS, University of Newcastle upon Tyne AIESEC UK IS Manager http://www.aiesec.org/uk/infosys/ AIESEC LISTSERV Manager http://www.aiesec.org/insight/dialogue/ Newcastle Kingsmen webmaster http://www.ncl.ac.uk/~n4128220/kingsmen/ -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-