Hi Amos,
At 12.37 06/10/2008, Amos Jeffries wrote:
Guido Serassio wrote:
Hi Henrik,
At 23.42 05/10/2008, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
On sön, 2008-10-05 at 14:29 +1300, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> The users who have needed to use it recently pretty much overrule
> complete removal in 3.1.
>
> Does squid_smb_lm_auth cover everyones understanding of it?
Like to keep the ntlm part if possible as it's a good indication of what
auth_param class the helper may be used from, even if the helper as such
only support lanman level subset of NTLMSSP.
Correct, but things are very confused here.
Currently we have four ntlm helpers:
fakeauth_auth
mswin_ntlm_auth
no_check.pl
ntlm_auth
So, now any kind of naming convention is missing ..... :-(
What about something like this ?
fake_ntlm_auth
mswin_ntlm_auth
no_check_ntlm_auth.pl
lm_ntlm_auth
If we want to get into renaming all of them I find this naming scheme easier:
BNF ::= [ 'basic' | 'negotiate' | 'ntlm' | 'digest' ] '_' name '_auth'
Which would make that list:
ntlm_fake_auth
ntlm_mswin_auth
ntlm_nocheck_auth.pl
ntlm_smb_lm_auth
Easier yes?
For me both are good.
In both cases, we need to remember to fix the
documentation in all helper folder.
And we might as well make over all the auth
helpers while at it. As a project for 3.2+.
I agree.
For now, if people agree to the above, I can
make _just_ the current 'ntlm_auth' helper name match that scheme.
Fine for me.
Regards
Guido
-
========================================================
Guido Serassio
Acme Consulting S.r.l. - Microsoft Certified Partner
Via Lucia Savarino, 1 10098 - Rivoli (TO) - ITALY
Tel. : +39.011.9530135 Fax. : +39.011.9781115
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.acmeconsulting.it/
