On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 11:17 AM, David F. Skoll
wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2011 10:07:56 -0700
> Chris Travers wrote:
>
>> In other words, LedgerSMB doesn't authenticate users in 1.3, nor is it
>> the final check against exceeding permissions. These are both handled
>> by PostgreSQL.
>
> Really?
On Sun, 29 May 2011 00:07:42 +0200
Erik Huelsmann wrote:
[...]
> > It also makes testing annoying because when you blow away a test
> > database, you also have to remember to blow away any LSMB users. If
> > auth info were stored in the database itself, this wouldn't be a
> > problem.
> Neithe
Hi David,
> Yep. And none of those appeals to me. I like LSMB to maintain its
> own database of users independent of all of those other possibilities.
>
>> What specifically goes wrong in your server management processes when
>> LSMB uses PostgreSQL authentication, taking into account that 1.3
On Sat, 28 May 2011 21:06:44 +0200
Erik Huelsmann wrote:
> You're aware that the PostgreSQL versions nowadays allow
> authentication against its own database, Kerberos,
> LDAP/ActiveDirectory and PAM out of the box?
Yep. And none of those appeals to me. I like LSMB to maintain its
own database
On Sat, 28 May 2011 10:07:56 -0700
Chris Travers wrote:
> In other words, LedgerSMB doesn't authenticate users in 1.3, nor is it
> the final check against exceeding permissions. These are both handled
> by PostgreSQL.
Really?
I was unaware of that. I do not like that approach. We run our LSM
Hi David,
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 8:17 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2011 10:07:56 -0700
> Chris Travers wrote:
>
>> In other words, LedgerSMB doesn't authenticate users in 1.3, nor is it
>> the final check against exceeding permissions. These are both handled
>> by PostgreSQL.
>
>
On Sat, 28 May 2011 10:07:56 -0700
Chris Travers wrote:
> In other words, LedgerSMB doesn't authenticate users in 1.3, nor is it
> the final check against exceeding permissions. These are both handled
> by PostgreSQL.
Really?
I was unaware of that. I do not like that approach. We run our LSM
On Jan 30, 2008 12:36 PM, The Anarcat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 11:24:41AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > That said, Postgres does provide for LDAP, Kerberos and PAM-based
> > authentication, so it is still possible to have external authentication
> > for LSMB, just
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 11:24:41AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> That said, Postgres does provide for LDAP, Kerberos and PAM-based
> authentication, so it is still possible to have external authentication
> for LSMB, just one level removed. I had LDAP in mind anyway...
Having participated
On Jan 30, 2008 3:24 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> That said, Postgres does provide for LDAP, Kerberos and PAM-based
> authentication, so it is still possible to have external
> authentication for LSMB, just one level removed. I had LDAP in mind
> anyway...
This is one of the major reaso
Quoting Pongracz Istvan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008. 01. 29, kedd keltezéssel 23.09-kor [EMAIL PROTECTED] ezt írta:
>
>> Just a quick (and probably silly) question.
>
>
> Not really,
Thanks :)
> as I read your post, it would be really nice to use a
> modularized authentication.
>
> Of
2008. 01. 29, kedd keltezéssel 23.09-kor [EMAIL PROTECTED] ezt írta:
> Just a quick (and probably silly) question.
Not really, as I read your post, it would be really nice to use a
modularized authentication.
Of course, it generates other technical questions/problems.
Kind regards,
Ist
Hi All,
Just a quick (and probably silly) question.
Have any firm decisions been made about how authentication is going to
be handled in 1.3? I ask in light of the recent discussions about CRM
and the roadmap. A small idea is beginning to germinate in my head,
but my time is very much lim
13 matches
Mail list logo
