On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 05:17:01PM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote:
> Chris Garrigues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Much of the common patches that are around fail in one of the tests above,
> > > at least when using the author's stringent tests. There's nothing wrong
> > > with this; he keeps qmail secure, reliable, efficient, and "correct", and
> > > anyone who wants to applies patches as they see fit.
> >
> > I, for one, am hoping that 2.0 will have LDAP support which meets his
> > standards.
>
> As you said, the existing LDAP libraries are probably crap. But why does
> qmail have to be patched to use LDAP? Why not use a script which extracts
> user information from the LDAP database, puts it in passwd format, and
> feeds it to qmail-pw2u? Then cron it every hour or something. Voila,
Better yet, why not make a replacement qmail-getpw? That's how I built
an LDAP-aware qmail a couple of years ago.
One problem with replacing qmail-getpw is that the domain isn't know.
which is a problem for multi-domain systems, so I modified
qmail-lspawn to pass the domain to qmail-getpw. The code is no big
deal, but I'm hopeful DJB will consider the idea in a future release
as it increases the ease with which alternative user databases can be
supported in an unmodified qmail.
Regards.
