Nope. It would be better to integrate GSS and/or SASL support.
PAM is best for initial authentication handling (e.g., user/password).
GSS / SASL are best for network authentication (e.g., Kerberos, PKI,
etc...).
Nico
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 05:19:00PM +0100, Rief, Jacob wrote:
> Hi,
> Would'nt it be a better idea to use 'pam' for authentication
> instead of doing a hard-wired LDAP-authentication in rsync?
> This would include LDAP authentication through pam_ldap.so.
> Jacob
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dave Dykstra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 4:27 PM
> > To: Stefan Nehlsen
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [resend] patch: ldap authentication for rsyncd (2.4.6)
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 03:04:40PM +0100, Stefan Nehlsen wrote:
> > > hello,
> > >
> > > there was absolutely no reaction first time I posted this
> > in december.
> > >
> > > With this patch you may use a ldap server for
> > authentication of rsyncd users.
> >
> >
> > Can you say more about how you intend to use this? Perhaps
> > there was no
> > reaction because nobody else could think of how they would use it
> > personally; I know that's the case for me. I know there is
> > resistance to
> > putting features into rsync if the same thing can be done in
> > other ways.
> >
> > I'm sure that at a minimum if this were to be accepted into
> > the standard
> > rsync code base there would have to be corresponding
> > configure and man page
> > changes before that could happen.
> >
> > - Dave Dykstra
> > (former rsync maintainer)
> >
--
