Conference iosg::all-in-1_v30

    Tracy,        
    
    The August 1992 Information Update contains an extensive article on SMU
    and GMA which I think will answer most of your questions, except
    maybe what the message looks like on a non-DIGITAL machine.
    
    Note 9.5 contains a pointer to this issue. Have a read of it and let us
    know what if any questions remain.
    
    Regards,
    
    Andrew.D.Wicks

    Andrew,
    
    I've read through the aug92 supplement, it didn't tell me anything I
    didn't already know or anything I couldn't find out on a 3.0 system
    myself.
    
    So,
    1)  Is there anyway to grant mail access without the Delete priv?
    (On current system, this answer is still no, take this as a hint.)
    
    2)  Other than taking the option off the menu, can GMA/SMU be disabled?
          
    **3)  What happens to the Sender field (where SMU-ers' name shows up in
    the header) if the mail message goes to a PROFS or UNIX mail system?
     
    4)  Just what the heck do I and don't I have access to when I am 
    Set Mail User-ed into another account?
    I've already found some nasty surprises listed in .0.  I don't want
    there to be problems from the customer sites when their users find other
    things they can create, delete, and empty in someone else's account.
      (There were lots of controversial things missing in the aug92 
       supplement list.)
    --  Tracy

    Tracy,
    
    Sorry I don't know the answers. Stuart who knows everything is
    presumably on holiday. If nobody answers soon why not log a call here
    at the CSC and we'll get an 'expert' to look at it.
    
    Regards,
    
    Andrew.D.Wicks

    Stuart-who-knows-all is indeed away, not on vacation, but at DECUS.
    Normal service will be resumed when he returns on or about 4th
    September. Sorry folks!
    
    DaveT

>    1)  Is there anyway to grant mail access without the Delete priv?
>          (I didn't think so but promised I'd ask)
    
    Sorry, no.
    
>    2)  Can GMA/SMU be disabled?
>          (My response of course is to take it off the menu)
    
    Only by customisation, as you suggest. As a matter of interest, why do
    they want to do this? Do they also want to disable drawer sharing?
    Surely these options are under the control of the drawer owner, so they
    can determine whether to GMA or share a drawer.
    
>    **3)  What happens to the Sender field (where SMU-ers' name shows up in
>    the header) if the mail message goes to a PROFS or UNIX mail system?
>         I was able to test it down to VMS mail and the field shows up as 
>    part of the header text.
    
    As you discovered, the real senders name is enclosed in [] and put in
    the sender fullname field, starting at position 32. This should work
    for most mail systems. Unfortunately one mail system it won't work for
    is a pre-Diamond ALL-IN-1 system, which truncates the field before this
    point.
    
>    I found out that I can create and edit things in a shared drawer that
>    I have access to, from within the other account. Ex: there are 2 shared
>    drawers TC-access drawer and TC-NOaccess drawer.
>      If I'm SMU-ed into SMITH, I cannot even select a drawer TC-noaccess 
>    if I have not been granted access to this drawer.
>    But --
>      If I am SMU-ed into SMITH's account (and SMITH and I both have access to
>    drawer TC-access)  I can create, edit, and delete to my heart's
>    content from within this other person's account (this includes going to
>    WP, FC, etc.)
    
    Are you saying that this is wrong? SMITH has granted you access to
    TC-access, but not to TC-NOaccess and this remains true whether you
    happen to be SMU'd to SMITH or not. The important thing is that the GMA
    has not compromised any of SMITH's drawers that SMITH doesn't want you
    to have access to.
    
>    My personal opinion is the the SMU-er should not be able to get out of
>    the MAIN drawer or off of EM (my REAL opinion is that the SMU-er 
>    should not be able to go to anything that isn't one of the four 
>    mail folders).
    
    I agree it would have been nice to limit GMA/SMU to the mail folders
    only, However access control has been implemented at the drawer level.
    So if SMITH doesn't want TC to see or touch documents in the non-mail
    folders of SMITH's MAIN drawer then SMITH should move them to the
    safety of a drawer to which TC has not been given access.
    
    Regards
    
    Dick-who-knows-a-little-bit
    
    Sorry if this duplicates what has been said in the aug 92 supplement,
    which I must confess I haven't yet read.

    This may be belabouring the obvious,
    but until a customer pointed out to me, it had never occurred
    to me.
    If you have an unprivileged ALL-IN-1 user (no mgmt or admin priv,
    no access to drawers/etc granted, no GMU granted) BUT this user
    happens to have a privileged VMS account, this person can easily
    do an SMU (Set Mail User) and do what they heck they please with
    the other person's messages/documents.
    two remarks:
    1/ comments?
    2/ which VMS priv can I take away so that this will not happen (I
       am rusty on my VMS privs).
    
    Monica
     

    The privs that enable them to read the other person's files! Probably
    SYSPRV or READALL. Check the protection on the other guy's DOCDB.DAT
    etc, and see what access to it they have.
    
    Graham

    Surely this is exactly the same situation that has always existed for
    all applications on any computer system?  If a user is privileged then
    they can pretty well do what they want with other peoples' files. So a
    privileged user, for example, the ALL-IN-1 manager, can always use the
    dreaded NEWDIR facility to "set owner" to another's account, or select
    another user's drawer with the IAD or SDR options, or go and SMU to
    their mail drawer. And this list doesn't even begin to go into the
    permutations of methods that can be employed by privileged users to
    peruse other users' mail.
    
    Is there a problem?
    
    No -- if you trust the set of privileged users on a system, and
    maintain that set to an absolute minimum, and make unauthorized
    interference with mail/documents a firing offence.
    
    Yes -- if everyone has privileges and no control is exercised over the
    use of those privileges.
    
    IMHO, Tony