On 2/7/19 11:09 PM, Zeus Panchenko wrote:
> We've found RFC2307bis2:
> "An Approach for Using LDAP as a Network Information Service"
>
> and now wondering, what've happened to it finally? Is it just expired
> and forgotten?
I've tried to resurrect ldapext working group but failed.
AFAIK there's
greetings,
We've found RFC2307bis2:
"An Approach for Using LDAP as a Network Information Service"
and now wondering, what've happened to it finally? Is it just expired
and forgotten?
Recently we've began to deploy netgroup usage in our network and found
it impossible to do search by
--On Wednesday, February 06, 2019 2:42 PM +0100 Geert Hendrickx
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 06:53:02 -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
A tool-threads setting > 2 is ignored with back-mdb.
Interesting, it seems this is not docmented?
I documented it for Zimbra at
On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 06:05:02PM +0100, Michael Ströder wrote:
You should rather set
olcTLSProtocolMin: 3.3
Unfortunately this option is currently implemented for OpenSSL only,
while Philip mentioned he is using GnuTLS.
On 2/7/19 5:50 PM, Philip Colmer wrote:
> I want to restrict the cipher suites used in OpenLDAP so that only
> TLS1.2 is supported.
>
> Looking at https://openldap.org/doc/admin24/tls.html, I first tried
> setting olcTLSCipherSuite to "HIGH" but the LDAP server gave an error 80
> and then stopped
I want to restrict the cipher suites used in OpenLDAP so that only TLS1.2
is supported.
Looking at https://openldap.org/doc/admin24/tls.html, I first tried setting
olcTLSCipherSuite to "HIGH" but the LDAP server gave an error 80 and then
stopped accepted further connections until I restarted it.
Ulrich Windl wrote:
Howard Chu schrieb am 07.02.2019 um 11:45 in Nachricht
> <07438385-b8a5-92c8-3902-9d3084cbe...@symas.com>:
>> A. Schulze wrote:
>>>
>>> Howard Chu:
>>>
> Any idea why the memory usage is so different?
If the only difference is that you set the open file
A. Schulze wrote:
>
> Howard Chu:
>
>>> Any idea why the memory usage is so different?
>>
>> If the only difference is that you set the open file limit to 1024, then it
>> sounds
>> like whatever your default file limit is is much larger.
>
> Hello Howard,
>
> yes, it's unlimited by default.
Howard Chu:
Any idea why the memory usage is so different?
If the only difference is that you set the open file limit to 1024,
then it sounds
like whatever your default file limit is is much larger.
Hello Howard,
yes, it's unlimited by default. Tons of other daemon also run without
