David E. Storey writes: > > I would agree that uid is definitely BAD for "global" or internet apps. I > maintain that you can KEEP a uid so long as it is not exposed to the user. > > And I'd also resound the proprietary schema statement. LDAPv2 had a much > more localized schema. Attributes weren't necessarily exposed and you > could name things whatever you wanted. LDAPv3 has a much more GLOBAL > schema implemented where the probability of name clashes are much higher. > When developing a schema it's a really good idea to select attribute names > that reflect the purpose of that attribute. For the most part, the qmail > schema is fine.
Again, in this case uid is overly generic. Something like qldapAuthUid would have been much better. Doesn't clash with uid or authUid. I think it's a good idea to prepend "qldap" or similar to all qmail-ldap auxiliary attributes to avoid clashes.
