On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:33:37 -0500
Ken Murchison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Its not a problem to implement it.  I'd like to get some more discussion 
> on how the two methods can/should interact.

Let me share my point of view:

virtdomains=off:

server accepts & authenticates usernames without @domain on any interface it
is configured to listen on. this is basically the 2.1 behaviour, so let say
the handling of [EMAIL PROTECTED] kind of usernames is undefined (because there
were some early 3rd party patches to handle them). admin is only one, so no
need for global admins.

virtomains=userid

server server accepts & authenticates usernames without @domain on any
interface it is configured to listen on only if the defaultdomain is set.
without defaultdomain server accepts & authenticates only usernames in the
form [EMAIL PROTECTED], where domain specifies the hirearchy tree the user belongs
to. global admin should be specified without the @domain and admin users
with @domain should only have rights over their domain tree.

virtdomains=ipaddr (or something)

here we need to teach server the ip->domain mapping. reverse dns? most
likely.
server accepts & authenticates usernames without @domain on appropriate
interfaces (ip adresses) and it searches for username only in the domain the
ip adress the user is coming from belongs. [EMAIL PROTECTED] usernames should be
rejected IMHO. global admin should be specified without the @domain and
authenticated on any ip address. per domain admin users should be specified
with @domain and should only authenticate when coming to the right ip
address.

virtdomains=on

server first looks for [EMAIL PROTECTED], then in case of user the ip address and
then the defaultdomain setting. reject if none are available. global admin
should be specified without the @domain and admin users with @domain should
only have rights over their domain tree.



This is how i would lay out things ... dont know if it matches current
status accurately. Are here any obvious shortcomings and problems i'm not
seeing?

-- 

Jure PeÄar

Reply via email to