I've been sort of silent with this post because I really don't have much
LDAP experience. We've had a number of patches that have changed our LDAP
support around, and I try to follow it as best I can, but I don't know the
implications of the patches. So I can't really say what the correct thing
We have a patch up that I haven't reviewed yet (I'd like other
LDAP-knowledgeable users to look into it if possible) that may address your
concerns. Would you be able to give it a try?
Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Alexey Morozov <morozov...@ngs.ru> wrote:
> Hello again!
> On Thursday 29 January 2009 05:03:05 Alexey Morozov wrote:
> > Certainly the change is rather trivial but since I'm almost unfamiliar
> > LDAP-related things I'd like to hear first that there're no other
> > considerations not to add the binding.
> Also in http://www.mechanicalcat.net/tech/roundup/wiki/LDAPLogin I noticed
> that they use ldap.SCOPE_SUBTREE instead of ldap.SCOPE_ONELEVEL
> when performing search-before-bind. This [potentially] could allow a more
> flexible LDAP trees (and I've found already this is useful on some LDAP
> configurations) but since I don't completely understand all consequences,
> like to ask if it's worth doing.
> Yours respectfully,
> Alexey Morozov
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at