On 9 Aug 2001, Julio Sanchez Fernandez wrote:
> Marco Colombo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > because that's the right place to use SASL. Despite of PAM not being
> > a replacement for SASL, of course. I think that OpenLDAP requirement
> > for a modular, configurable network security layer (SASL itself) is
> > weaker than the IMAPd one. So IFF you need to remove SASL from one
> > of the two, OpenLDAP is a better candidate.
>
> No, OpenLDAP needs to provide SASL. Without it, it is severely
> crippled. Some people hold the opinion that OpenLDAP is not compliant
> with the V3 specs if compiled without SASL. The mechanisms
> implemented may be trivial, but SASL has to be there.
Ok, I wrote "if and only if". SASL is a "Good Thing(TM)".
The fact I can write a little client/server application that supports
many different mechs, from weaker ones to stronger ones, *without*
almost any knowledge of them is great. I even support *future* mechs,
and users can add them with no need to recompile...
.TM.
--
____/ ____/ /
/ / / Marco Colombo
___/ ___ / / Technical Manager
/ / / ESI s.r.l.
_____/ _____/ _/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
