On Fri, 2006-03-31 at 13:13 -0700, Craig White wrote:

On Fri, 2006-03-31 at 14:53 -0400, Oliver Schulze L. wrote:

...

Hi,

<snip> this.is.avery.long.username

All is working fine: sendmail, dovecot, idx-smbldap-tools, ceti-poppassd, chown

My question is, I'm breaking some standards? Or breaking some posix specification by doing this? It is recomended to have this kind of usernames on Linux?

---

actually, I'm surprised that you didn't notice a burp when you used chown command as the Red Hat tools will use a dot as a separator.

i.e.

chown craig.dom_users /path/to/file chown craig:dom_users /path/to/file

are functionally the same thing but just because it doesn't toss an error the first time you chown this.is.a.very.long.username /somefile doesn't mean that it actually worked. If you did "chown this.is.a.very.long.username" /somefile it probably would work

For some time now, the man page ha espoused "user:group". Maybe they finallly removed the support for the ".". It's been deprecated long enough.

I would suggest that you keep testing for adequacy.

Yes. Regardless of the ":/." on chown, other users have reported problems with "." in user names. Check the archives. HTH Bill

On Fri, 2006-03-31 at 18:01 -0400, Oliver Schulze L. wrote:

Hi Craig and William, my tests are successful until now.

All this tests are successful:

• getent passwd, getent group, id, groups, finger, su
• smbldap-useradd, smbldap-groupadd
• chown username file
• chgrp group file
• sendmail/dovecot/ceti-poppassd
• emails to/from yahoo/hotmail/gmail

Notes: if I pass the username and group to chown, it fails. I have to use like this: # touch /tmp/test1 # chown root.root /tmp/test1 # chown -v this.is.avery.long.username /tmp/test1 # chgrp -v this.is.avery.long.username /tmp/test1

Thanks for the comments, Oliver

I just did the cown here with both "," and ":". Still works with both. I wish I could remember who/what that problem was. Well, maybe it's been fixed up by chances since then.

GL Bill