Hi.
Well, I also prefer myself the LDAP-Solution. ODBC was just a suggestion.
But in general I think it's way better to use LDAP than system user accounts
or things like that.
Not only because of the already mentioned facts, but also that system user
accounts have very few possibilities to store
On Wed, 2003-06-25 at 10:16, duncan wrote:
> >ODBC == BAD
> >ODBC is the lowest common denominator for database connections. In this
> >case a full blown database is overkill for lookups mainly. You don't
> >need the whole SQL stuff. This is why LDAP would be okay, it essentially
> >is a flat file
ODBC == BAD
ODBC is the lowest common denominator for database connections. In this
case a full blown database is overkill for lookups mainly. You don't
need the whole SQL stuff. This is why LDAP would be okay, it essentially
is a flat file that can be searched fast and remotely.
i think ODBC supp
Just a note, could you file a bug report about the way kmail deals with
your pgp signature? The way it currently deals with it is really just
noise to your message. If it was handled correctly then my email client
would actually go ahead and verify your message. As it is, I see the
signature, but i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi.
I think LDAP (or perhaps even better: an generic ODBC interface) is really the
way you want:
in a large environment (enterprise, university, ...) you often already have a
central database of users. If you now want to add an * syst
No-one has mentioned PAM yet. (pluggable authentication modules).
If you implement PAM in Asterisk, then you have LDAP/passwd shadow
windows etc. in one step.
Maybe the phone numbers in /etc/passwd will get used!
cheers,
Woody
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 04:17:15PM -0500, Steven Critchfield wrote:
On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 15:47, Dylan VanHerpen wrote:
> After saying LDAP is a better choice than system users, I still wonder
> why it is important to have users be able to change passwords here.
>
> It would greatly simplify unified messaging: one account, all your
> messages (email, voice, fax) i
After saying LDAP is a better choice than system users, I still wonder
why it is important to have users be able to change passwords here.
It would greatly simplify unified messaging: one account, all your messages (email, voice, fax) in one mailbox.
Steven Critchfield wrote:
LDAP is a _MUCH_ b
LDAP is a _MUCH_ better solution to that problem than user accounts on a
machine. Even if you have a /bin/false shell, users could cause trouble
with your system. For security reasons you want to keep the number of
accounts low and the number of accounts with password protected access
even lower. S
I'm wondering if LDAP might be the more correct thing to use though.
Absolutely!
Reed Wade wrote:
Because you haven't written and contributed that functionality yet.
(smiley face goes here)
That sounds pretty sweet. I'm wondering if LDAP might be the more
correct thing to use though.
-reed
Because you haven't written and contributed that functionality yet.
(smiley face goes here)
That sounds pretty sweet. I'm wondering if LDAP might be the more
correct thing to use though.
-reed
At 10:50 AM 6/24/2003 -0600, you wrote:
I've been scouring the archives for discussions on this:
W
I've been scouring the archives for discussions on this:
Why doesn't Asterisk use system user accounts for each
extension/mailbox? That would add the benefit of encrypted passwords,
logical grouping, unified mail/voice mail accounts (using
/var/spool/mail instead of /var/spool/asterisk). I can
12 matches
Mail list logo
