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/
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-