On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 02:42:41AM +0900, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
Dominic Mitchell wrote:
On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 04:45:50PM +0100, Roelof Osinga wrote:
Grand gesture. Laudable even. Yeah, that PAM sure seems to've
become popular. The Courier IMAP port also insisted upon its
On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 04:45:50PM +0100, Roelof Osinga wrote:
Grand gesture. Laudable even. Yeah, that PAM sure seems to've
become popular. The Courier IMAP port also insisted upon its
installation. Insisted in that fiddling with the makefile only
resulted in failure to configure. But that's
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 09:46:47AM +, Dominic Mitchell wrote:
Would it be a good idea to start using /etc/pam.d ala RedHat, instead of
the monolithic /etc/pam.conf?
As far as I can see the support is already there, it's just not being
used due to the presence of the /etc/pam.conf.
Title: RE: PAM (was: Re: MAIL set by whom?)
I posted a question about PAM Passwd on 4.2. It seems that passwd ignores any passwd lines in pam.conf. I tried the pam.d thing (Run Linux compatibility, copy rc.d/* from Redhat 6.1 to BSD. When you try to log in, the login terminates, and syslog
Dominic Mitchell wrote:
On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 04:45:50PM +0100, Roelof Osinga wrote:
Grand gesture. Laudable even. Yeah, that PAM sure seems to've
become popular. The Courier IMAP port also insisted upon its
installation. Insisted in that fiddling with the makefile only
resulted in
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 02:42:41AM +0900, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
Ports shouldn't touch /etc.
Does the existance of /etc/pam.conf precludes /usr/local/etc/pam.d from
working?
Other way around. From the man page (the last sentence is even
underlined :-)
Alternatively, the
6 matches
Mail list logo
