Si Carter wrote:

>
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>It's a question of control. With coteries you can let less
>>privileged
>>users come in from anywhere but restrict SYSDBA (or whatever) to
>>specific hosts or hosts strictly behind the firewall.
>>
>>
>
>This sounds like a good idea, and certainly one which enhances an RFE I
>added in January
>(http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1108195&group_id=9
>028&atid=359028). More and more web hosts are starting to allow customers
>to use FB, imo, a block at the firewall level is not a good solution, if
>your customers have dynamic ip at home/office and want to connect and their
>new IP is not in the list they can't get in. Allowing FB to control this
>would be a fantastic enhancement.
>
>

May be it's time to discuss details.

1. In which form should coteries be kept? To allow access from network
192.168.3.0 known forms are at least:
192.168.3.0/24
192.168.3.0/255.255.255.0
192.168.3.0
192.168.3.
My prefered style is 1, but it's interesting to know other people's mind.

2. How should be cotteries entered? Should we add switches to gbak?
Services API? Isc_user_* family of functions? (I know Jim will answer
that it's necessary to have fb_authenticate_user, but for fb2 this is
unreal suggestion).

3. Do we let user have infinite number of coteries or limit it with some
reasonable thing? Answer is not very simple, if we want to let user
modify his coteries himself. If limited, should it be configurable or
hardcoded?