Andrey A. Chernov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
Please disregard. Andrey does not know what he's talking about and
ignores any attempt at explaining what the real issue is and what real
users want.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 11:01:43 +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
Andrey A. Chernov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
Please disregard. Andrey does not know what he's talking about and
ignores any attempt at explaining what the real issue is and what real
users want.
Unless you specify
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 13:27:38 +0300, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
Unless you specify exact details of what I ignore, I'll be forced to
treat your reply as NO REVIEW and commit this changes.
Well, after numerous exchanges of nonsense messages a bit of details comes
from des, so I correct my
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Andrey A. Chernov writes:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 13:27:38 +0300, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
Unless you specify exact details of what I ignore, I'll be forced to
treat your reply as NO REVIEW and commit this changes.
Well, after numerous exchanges of nonsense
Andrey A. Chernov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Admins with no /etc/opieaccess AFFECTED!
Admins with no /etc/opieaccess IDIOTS for not running mergemaster!
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 11:58:57 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Andrey A. Chernov writes:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 13:27:38 +0300, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
Unless you specify exact details of what I ignore, I'll be forced to
treat your reply as NO REVIEW and
Andrey A. Chernov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But... Nonsense from my side happens only because
1) I see the breakage.
2) Seen breakage, I try to guess what des means, when he made it,
having no information from des.
3) If I guess it (with no information) incorrectly, it not means
that
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 12:06:36 +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
Andrey A. Chernov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Admins with no /etc/opieaccess AFFECTED!
Admins with no /etc/opieaccess IDIOTS for not running mergemaster!
First of all, there are many years of existen OPIE administration
Dag-Erling Smorgrav writes:
Andrey A. Chernov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Admins with no /etc/opieaccess AFFECTED!
Admins with no /etc/opieaccess IDIOTS for not running mergemaster!
POLA. We don't want to burn our user/admins.
M
--
Mark Murray
iumop ap!sdn w,I idlaH
To Unsubscribe: send
Andrey A. Chernov writes:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 11:01:43 +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
Andrey A. Chernov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
Please disregard. Andrey does not know what he's talking about and
ignores any attempt at explaining what the real issue is and what real
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 11:21:15 +, Mark Murray wrote:
Does the -as-localhost-alias break other PAM modules?
No, it is local variable for that module.
In what way does localhost or NULL break OPIE?
Look into any pre-PAM code which use OPIE, like login code. Host (rhost)
is only set to
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Andrey A. Chernov writes:
Please take this to private email.
I not see enough good will from des side for it.
Then please just stop.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 12:16:27 +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
My message [EMAIL PROTECTED] dated 2003-02-16
00:46:27 CET contained all the information you needed.
If you mean that quote from it:
This behaviour was very surprising to people who wanted to prevent OPIE
users from using
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 12:06:36 +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
Andrey A. Chernov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Admins with no /etc/opieaccess AFFECTED!
Admins with no /etc/opieaccess IDIOTS for not running mergemaster!
Moreover, admins WITH old /etc/opieaccess (i.e. without your line)
are
Andrey A. Chernov writes:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 12:06:36 +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
Andrey A. Chernov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Admins with no /etc/opieaccess AFFECTED!
Admins with no /etc/opieaccess IDIOTS for not running mergemaster!
Moreover, admins WITH old
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 03:48:20PM +, Mark Murray wrote:
Andrey A. Chernov writes:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 12:06:36 +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
Andrey A. Chernov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Admins with no /etc/opieaccess AFFECTED!
Admins with no /etc/opieaccess IDIOTS for
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 07:11:49PM +, Mark Murray wrote:
In the case where an application is OPIEised and not PAMised, we
need to figure out something; PAMizing such apps is not terribly
hard. If any of them are in the base system, then this situation
is a bug in its own right. If they are
David O'Brien writes:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 07:11:49PM +, Mark Murray wrote:
In the case where an application is OPIEised and not PAMised, we
need to figure out something; PAMizing such apps is not terribly
hard. If any of them are in the base system, then this situation
is a bug in
David O'Brien writes:
With a suitable HEADS UP! and appropriate changes to the documentation,
might is be possible to move _all_ policy control into PAM, instead of
having it split between OPIE and PAM?
Nope. What about opieized, but not pamized applications?
OPIE needs to act on
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 19:11:49 +, Mark Murray wrote:
In the case where an application is OPIEised and not PAMised, we
need to figure out something; PAMizing such apps is not terribly
hard. If any of them are in the base system, then this situation
We are not in the situation to force
* De: Andrey A. Chernov [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Data: 2003-02-16 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: OPIE breakage: backout patch for review ]
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 19:11:49 +, Mark Murray wrote:
In the case where an application is OPIEised and not PAMised, we
need to figure out something
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 15:39:51 -0600, Juli Mallett wrote:
Can you explain how this stops purely opieized apps from working? I was
under the impression the implicit case was still there, we just have a
more explicit contract with the OPIE system.
This is not pure situation but mix with
On Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 01:51:20 +0300, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
properly). If you tune opiezed+pamified apps to work as you need, pure
opized stops working and vice versa.
In this phrase I mean documented OPIE tuning of OPIE config files (old
way), without any new additions and requirements,
At 3:48 PM + 2/16/03, Mark Murray wrote:
Andrey A. Chernov writes:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
Andrey A. Chernov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Admins with no /etc/opieaccess AFFECTED!
Admins with no /etc/opieaccess IDIOTS for not running mergemaster!
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 20:16:43 -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
to indicate localhost. Andrey provided a patch which allows OPIE
to keep that standard (to OPIE) meaning. Could people try his
patch and then explain why it does not solve the problem they are
trying to solve?
The problem
Background: recently des tries to fight problem that OPIE not sense
localhost when called from PAM, but does it incorrectly. Moreover, he
tries to fix OPIE config instead of fixing PAM bug: PAM not follows OPIE
API.
In non-PAM environment OPIE always sense localhost because its host
variable
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 04:41:58 +0300, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
des tries to fix OPIE config to add
additional things here not needed by standard OPIE setup at all.
To be more specific, exact breakage after des is:
Old non-PAMified OPIE variant: localhost allowed even there is no
27 matches
Mail list logo