> > And it has identical tags. If it turns out that X.400 makes something like
> > "ou=frobozz,cn=us" different from "cn=us,ou=frobozz" different, then I'll be
> > surprised... because formats usually use unique tags *or* order, but not
> > both.
> But here, there's dc=spodhuis,dc=demon,dc=nl -- t
On 2006-07-07 at 10:23 -0500, Peter da Silva wrote:
> > The rest of the DN is order-dependent.
>
> And it has identical tags. If it turns out that X.400 makes something like
> "ou=frobozz,cn=us" different from "cn=us,ou=frobozz" different, then I'll be
> surprised... because formats usually use un
> > > gidNumber=0+uidNumber=0,cn=peercred,cn=external,cn=a...@example.net
> > I'm confused, why would you expect the order of tagged elements in a list
> > to remain constant?
> Which list?
gidNumber=0+uidNumber=0
> The two items separated by + aren't usually referred to as
> a list, are they?
On 2006-07-07 at 09:27 -0500, Peter da Silva wrote:
> > gidNumber=0+uidNumber=0,cn=peercred,cn=external,cn=a...@example.net
> I'm confused, why would you expect the order of tagged elements in a list
> to remain constant?
Which list? The two items separated by + aren't usually referred to as
a
> sasl-regexp
> uidNumber=([^,]*)\\+gidNumber=([^,]*),cn=peercred,cn=external,cn=auth
> ldap:///ou=People,dc=example,dc=net??sub?(&(uidNumber=$1)(gidNumber=$2))
>
> The problem? From the logs:
>
> gidNumber=0+uidNumber=0,cn=peercred,cn=external,cn=a...@example.net
This combines my hate for a
I have OpenLDAP providing data, including as a backend for Heimdal.
Yes, I know, but I was playing and I want to be able to sync with one
protocol which has been more exposed to scrutiny.
Update OpenLDAP from 2.2 to 2.3. Take the opportunity to split the
Kerberos backend off into a separate DB.
Today my mail client realized the button "reply to mailing list" should
not be there.
It's probably not recognizing the mailing list. There's a reason for
everything.
It's also a fact this "reason" is essentially bogus. Is there a single
good reason for which they shall hide the button? Couldn't ju
Il giorno ven, 07/07/2006 alle 11.46 +1000, Matt McLeod ha scritto:
> Nah, now you just get certified drivers with lots of bugs and
> third-party hacked ones that have fewer. The latest nVidia drivers
> are just brilliant: they make the C++ runtime crash.
Last time it happened to me (crash ca
On 7/7/06, jrod...@hate.spamportal.net wrote:
In the old days when I would run windows, my video card vendor always
provided two driver options: the logo certified one, and the one with
fewer bugs. I'm sure the program works the same way now.
Nah, now you just get certified drivers with lots
On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 11:11:20AM +1200, Guy Thornley wrote:
> > It's more of an advertisement for their driver "certification"
> > process. It's a message to driver developers: "pay us a boatload of
> > money for your driver to be certified, or we'll make it look like your
> > software is shonk
> It's more of an advertisement for their driver "certification"
> process. It's a message to driver developers: "pay us a boatload of
> money for your driver to be certified, or we'll make it look like your
> software is shonky so people will go buy hardware from someone else".
Personally, I su
11 matches
Mail list logo
