Remove JeffNet code

[BryceStevenWilley]

It's not used anymore. It did help shape some of the API design (not well, TBH). But support both Tyler ECF 4 and 5 simultaneously will serve the same purpose.

Should be done after ECF 5 addition: #169.

[BryceStevenWilley]

Pushing this up, because we're having to add other features in the better typed code to support JeffNet, which is wasted effort, IMO.

[BryceStevenWilley]

And immediately ran into a complication:

The login code (i.e. SecurityHub, LoginDatabase, and LoginInterface) is strict when failing: so if a client said they wanted to login into Tyler Illinois and Jeffnet at the same time, since there is no longer a JeffNet to log into, we'll return a 403, even if the Tyler login is fine. IMO it's not a bad behavior, but it does tightly couple clients and servers, and makes it harder to change server functionality without also changing the client (harder now that IL uses this too).

Options around this:

1. be not as strict: if passed Tyler and an unsupported login, only login with Tyler and ignore the other one. This means we would essentially never pass back a 403, and I think a good bit of our EFSPIntegration code is assuming that will be returned, so still requires a lot of changes.
2. Change the API to only login with a single token at once. This is probably the best way (individual calls will succeed or fail w/ clear HTTP codes, on the client to do weird things to support multi-logins, and we can support that everywhere else still). changes a lot though.
3. default jeffnet stuff to true instead of false: false means it doesn't exist anymore and will break as described. True means if something is trying to use it to login, they'll be able to keep using it.
4. try to make the changes in EFSPIntegration first (removing jeffnet api token and it's use from the config)
5. push this off until we do the much larger ECF5 refactor (the original intention of this issue)

Leaning towards 3, it changes the least at the moment. Will have to test it pretty thoroughly though.