From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from techfac.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de ([129.70.1.2]) by archone.tamu.edu with SMTP id <22533>; Tue, 27 Aug 1991 04:10:00 -0500
Received: from dahlie.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE by techfac.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de (5.65+bind 1.7+ida 1.4.2/tp.29.0890)
	id AA02244; Tue, 27 Aug 91 11:09:31 +0200
Received: by dahlie.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de (4.1/tp.29.0890)
	id AA03673; Tue, 27 Aug 91 11:09:29 +0200
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1991 04:09:29 -0500
From: malte@techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
Message-Id: <9108270909.AA03673@dahlie.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de>
To: rc@archone.tamu.edu
Subject: rcmain discussion

I really dislike the discussion about rcmain. Every rcmain proposal I saw
until now can easily be cheeted on, if rc is invoked with commandline
options of the form '$i', '$p' .. because these may collide with the
variable names used inside rcmain.
This is a potential security hole when such scripts are called by suid
programs.

I am strongly in favour of discussing the topic which switches should be
built into rc and forget about rcmain.

Malte		(malte@techfak.uni-bielefeld.de)