Henning Brauer wrote: > On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 06:10:08PM +0300, Alex Zhukov wrote: > >>Henning Brauer wrote: >> > On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 05:38:29PM +0300, Alex Zhukov wrote: >> > >> >>constructs ldap filter like the one below: >> >>(&(objectclass=qmailUser)(uid=user1)) >> >> >> >>basedn is "o=ukrpost" because i also have to search users in other >>domains >> >> >> >>it queries the ldap and has _two_ dns in answer (which is correct): >> >>dn1: uid=user1, o=ukrpost.net, o=ukrpost >> >>dn2: uid=user1, o=epost.com.ua, o=ukrpost >>note that [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] are _different_ people. > > > yup. > > >> > you need unique UIDs. >> > he archives are full of discussions wrt this. >>you're right, but i dont choose uids, the users do (thru the web interface). >>what should i do if i have two users with the same name but in different >> domains? how should i design ldap tree to have uniq UIDs in such a >>situation? could you point me to a web-page where i can read the >>discussion on this problem? > > > who says UID=local part of the email address? nobody! > we use domain.com-user as UID scheme. sorry to bother you, your scheme is good enough, but i already have about 100000 users in ldap tree (which was designed before me) and migrating them to your scheme will take a lot of time and struggle as i'll have to rewrite web-mail client also :( that's why the idea of checking for "mail" not the uid seemed rather good for me.
and one more thing, when [EMAIL PROTECTED] logs in the smtp dialog should look like this: HELO AUTH LOGIN [EMAIL PROTECTED] //encoded in base64 password am i right? > >>thanks in advance >> >>alex zhukov >> >> > >
