> Yup, that was my intention. Oh, cool. I misunderstood you.
One more thing; why wasn't schema designed with "qldap" or similar prefixed to every attribute type? It's a very good practice, since you avoid clashes. The schema currently clashes at our site with the standard schema at least in "uid". Soon I will go through this effort: 1) Export all our existing accounts into an LDIF file 2) Modify qmail-ldap schema in qmail-ldap and our LDAP server to avoid clashes with existing attributes 3) Add new attributes/values to the LDIF 4) Import LDIF, etc. 5) At every upgrade repeat step 2. Another case in point: we have an attribute type called "devonitRid" for our custom schema. Samba's LDAP authentication uses "rid". If we didn't make it unique with 'devonit' prefixed to it, we'd have the above algorithm to go through again. It's a major pain in the ass. A lways make attribute type names unique to avoid clashes when designing custom LDAP schema. At leaset these need to be prefixed: uid, mail, homeDirectory. They conflict with the existing popular schemas. I would do the same for the rest of the attributes, because attribute types like 'accountStatus' may appear in standard schemas at any time.
