Sounds reasonable. I guess I was assuming more people were using more standard backends. Like in my case, ldap, which has pam_ldap.

Once I got ldap setup to authenticate users in general (pam_ldap, nss_ldap, nssswitch.conf, ldap.conf, slapd.conf...) configuring checkpassword-pam was a breeze :-)

-Bob

On Feb 2, 2005, at 5:09 PM, Kyle Lanclos wrote:

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




Reply via email to