dan, all, On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Dan Melomedman wrote:
> > i guess it depends upon what you mean by flexibility. you're right, the > > mailalternateaddress functionality of qmail-ldap is nice. on the other > > hand, the fact that i get configurability of various kinds of > > authentication and authorization for *all* system services out of PAM is > > also nice. > > Not all system services may be written to support PAM. Also PAM and NSS > are confused often. PAM means the pamified service is linked to the PAM > library, and is using the PAM API. NSS is a different story. an excellent point and one that has not been clear in the discussion thus far: probably all most users care about is nss, not necessarily pam. on the other hand, many linux distributions PAMify every system service already anyway, so again it depends on what you start with. i agree that if you didn't have an OS that had all system services PAMified (linked with the PAM library) then it would be a royal pain (and probably a security mistake) to do so. > > so you don't have data on the performance of LDAP authentications against > > PAM. too bad. i was hoping to see some. anyway, we'll throw out the > > "faster" claim that you made about qmail-ldap until we see those data. > > I don't, since I could really care less. I know I'll have less headaches > if I don't use PAM in the first place. that's fine. you were the one who said that qmail-ldap was "Faster". i tried to verify that claim and couldn't. you can't either and now you say that you don't care how fast it is. so we can stop talking about what is "Faster" until someone posts some numbers. > > > the additional amount of code needed to support PAM on a system that comes > > bundled with it is 0. the additional amount of code needed to support > > LDAP in qmail in >0. > > Not with qmail. Qmail would need to be patched to support PAM. If you > mean NSS, then I agree. you're right. i really mean nss here. t. -- todd underwood, vp & cto oso grande technologies, inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
