Bob Van Zant wrote: > I'm curious to know why more people don't go the route I did with > checkpassword-pam and then using the appropriate pam backend?
I've had bad encounters with PAM in the past, enough so that I only worry about it when something isn't working. Combine that with a completely non-standard password storage mechanism for IMAP passwords, and it was probably less time intensive for me to write my own checkpasswd than it was to wrestle with PAM on Solaris. I get the sneaky feeling I would have done the same amount of script writing to get PAM to work, as there would not have been a pre-existing PAM backend. --Kyle
