>>>>> On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 17:00:18 +0000, Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Dave> I introduced a second directive because I didn't think Dave> that "disableAuthorization" was particularly meaningful Dave> to a typical network administrator - it's much more of Dave> a security-orientated description. But it didn't feel Dave> my place to *remove* Wes' original choice - hence adding Dave> a parallel alternative. It is a security oriented description. Because your new one doesn't really let people understand the ramifications of what accepting all traps means. If you want to make it more clear, I'd still prefer to leave the token indicate some sort of "hmm... maybe I should think seriously about this" guidance rather than a token name which is appealing. How about "acceptUnauthorizedNotifications" or something a bit more blatant that what they're doing may allow their machine to be taken over if they're also using traphandle scripts. I want to discourage people from turning it on. I didn't mean to "hide" it, but I did mean to make people think seriously about flipping the bit. Dave> Traps and Notifications are sufficiently widely used Dave> that they're effectively interchangeable in normal Dave> conversation. But they shouldn't be. Notifications is definitely the right word here and all the SNMPv3 literature leads people to the direction that traps and informs are siblings of each other and children of a "notification" from a classification point of view. -- Wes Hardaker Sparta, Inc. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
