Chris Garrigues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Much of the common patches that are around fail in one of the tests above,
> > at least when using the author's stringent tests. There's nothing wrong
> > with this; he keeps qmail secure, reliable, efficient, and "correct", and
> > anyone who wants to applies patches as they see fit.
>
> I, for one, am hoping that 2.0 will have LDAP support which meets his
> standards.
As you said, the existing LDAP libraries are probably crap. But why does
qmail have to be patched to use LDAP? Why not use a script which extracts
user information from the LDAP database, puts it in passwd format, and
feeds it to qmail-pw2u? Then cron it every hour or something. Voila,
instant qmail+LDAP with no patches. If you want to set it up with
virtualdomains-type use, have the script output qmail-users style output
directly.
We do something similar for NIS; it works well. Every day I'm more and more
impressed with the modularity of qmail. The only patches I see as
necessary anywhere are big-concurrency and big-todo. Everything else is
just sugar.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
