Ok, I'm attaching the patch. This is for 1.6.24,
and there are some things that could use some
work. Right now, all the LDAP stuff is set with
defines (this was done for a specific case, so
that was fine at the time). This was pretty much
directly taken from the auth_unix.c groups setup.
If
Ken Murchison wrote:
> [...] we are leaning towards making it dependent on SASL v2.
> [...]
> We would like to get as much feedback (pro and con) on this as possible
> before we make a final decision.
Do it! It's not like there'll be a "better" time in the future...
:j
Yes, having LDAP groups would make shared mailboxes usable in our
organization without adding a great deal of administration overhead as
it would without LDAP.
Todd Nemanich wrote:
> I actually have some code to do LDAP based groups. It is not
> excessively flexible, because I don't really kn
I actually have some code to do LDAP based groups.
It is not excessively flexible, because I don't
really know LDAP. But I'm sure it could be easily
adapted to take the search constraints as a
configuration option. Is anyone interested in this?
Lawrence Greenfield wrote:
>From: "Tim Push
From: "Tim Pushor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 14:38:31 -0700
While we are talking about taking cyrus and SASL to the next level, is there
any plan to remove the dependance that Cyrus has on UNIX groups for group
based ACL's?
Well, it doesn't. It can also use the A
On Wed, 21 Nov 2001, Jeremy Howard wrote:
> I'd like to look at porting Postfix to SASL2 at some time shortly after
> Cyrus for SASL 2 comes out. Is there a porters guide someplace, or can
> someone post a summary of required steps?
There's a porters guide in the current CVS. Offhand, I'm not s
ot; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Cyrus Mailing
List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: [POLL] Cyrus v2.1 and SASL v2
> > Regarding complaints from those who don't want to mess with different
> > software systems using different versi
> Regarding complaints from those who don't want to mess with different
> software systems using different versions of SASL... DONT! Immediate
> upgrades to the latest version are not compulsory. How many recent
> messages start with "I'm running Cyrus 1.6.x on ...". If you have to
> wait for s
I whole heartedly support moving forward on SASLv2. It has to be done
at some point, and the sooner some momentum is generated, the sooner
other groups (sendmail, OpenLDAP have been mentioned) whille make the
transition.
Regarding complaints from those who don't want to mess with different
s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, Ken Murchison wrote:
> Cyrus users,
>
> We are getting close to releasing Cyrus v2.1 (yeah, I know I've said
> this a bunch of times already) and we are leaning towards making it
> dependent on SASL v2. We would like to do this
> Additionally, how hard is it to write a pwcheck
> method in SASL 2? I had a couple I did in SASL
> 1.5, but they required patches to the source. Can
> you just drop in a plugin, do you have to write a
> pwcheck/saslauthd daemon, or is there a simpler
> method I'm just overlooking?
>
You can plug
Hello all,
All the talk about the sasldb migration reminds me
of Nalin Dahyabhai's pam sasldb patch
(http://people.redhat.com/nalin/test/pam_sasldb-20011022.tgz).
Has anyone tried that yet? My thought is this.
Perhaps people who need to migrate could use that
(probably with a little w
Rob Siemborski wrote:
>
> As far as setpass() specifically, each plugin is still allowed to maintain
> its own database of secrets if necessary. There is no requirement that
> any mechanism plugin use sasldb for authentication (e.g. KERBEROS_V4).
> For the record, saslpasswd makes all appropriat
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, Ken Murchison wrote:
> > The v1 sasl library supported an auto-transition for plaintext
> > logins where the login was authenticated against some external
> > mechanism (e.g., /etc/passwd) and then used to create the entries
> > in the sasldb. A similar auto-transition, even
--On Monday, November 19, 2001 07:40:16 PM -0500 Ken Murchison
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Right. Which means that they will be duplicated and must be kept
>> in sync for as long as you have apps using both versions. Changing
>> your password in either database won't automatically change it
Pat Lashley wrote:
>
> --On Monday, November 19, 2001 03:49:59 PM -0500 Ken Murchison
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> > The biggest (only?) downside for existing installations is that any
> >> > secrets stored in sasldb would have to migrated to the new format.
> >> > This will require res
I would be all for making cyrus-imapd SASLv2 dependant.
Best Regards,
-Jev
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 01:54:11PM -0500, Ken Murchison wrote:
> Cyrus users,
> We are getting close to releasing Cyrus v2.1 (yeah, I know I've said
> this a bunch of times already) and we are leaning towards making it
> dependent on SASL v2. We would like to do this for a number of reasons:
>
<...>
> We would like to get as much feedback (pro and con) on this as possible
--On Monday, November 19, 2001 03:49:59 PM -0500 Ken Murchison
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > The biggest (only?) downside for existing installations is that any
>> > secrets stored in sasldb would have to migrated to the new format.
>> > This will require resetting all of the users passwords b
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, Christopher Wong wrote:
> > 1. Take advantage of the benefits of SASL v2 (improvements in memory
> > management, support for additional plugin types, simplified database
> > support, and improved error reporting).
[snip]
> You have sketched out benefits largely from a develop
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, Ken Murchison wrote:
> The biggest (only?) downside for existing installations is that any
> secrets stored in sasldb would have to migrated to the new format. This
> will require resetting all of the users passwords because they can not
> be extracted from the old sasldb (u
Christopher Wong wrote:
>
> On Monday 19 November 2001 01:54 pm, Ken Murchison wrote:
> > Cyrus users,
> >
> > We are getting close to releasing Cyrus v2.1 (yeah, I know I've said
> > this a bunch of times already) and we are leaning towards making it
> > dependent on SASL v2. We would like to
Pat Lashley wrote:
>
> --On Monday, November 19, 2001 01:54:11 PM -0500 Ken Murchison
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Cyrus users,
> >
> > We are getting close to releasing Cyrus v2.1 (yeah, I know I've said
> > this a bunch of times already) and we are leaning towards making it
> > depende
On Monday 19 November 2001 01:54 pm, Ken Murchison wrote:
> Cyrus users,
>
> We are getting close to releasing Cyrus v2.1 (yeah, I know I've said
> this a bunch of times already) and we are leaning towards making it
> dependent on SASL v2. We would like to do this for a number of
> reasons:
>
> 1
--On Monday, November 19, 2001 01:54:11 PM -0500 Ken Murchison
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Cyrus users,
>
> We are getting close to releasing Cyrus v2.1 (yeah, I know I've said
> this a bunch of times already) and we are leaning towards making it
> dependent on SASL v2. We would like to do thi
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 14:49:01 -0500
From: Ken Murchison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Can we have a chance to support IPv6? SASL v2 supports IPv6 already.
AFAIK, it hasn't been talked about. If its not already in the source
tree (I don't think it is), then probably not. Patches?
If
oved out of the library and into
saslauthd. Simply fire up 'saslauthd -a ' and you're good to
go.
Ken
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ken Murchison
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 1:54 PM
> To: Cyrus Maili
Ken Murchison wrote:
>
> Cyrus users,
>
> We are getting close to releasing Cyrus v2.1 (yeah, I know I've said
> this a bunch of times already) and we are leaning towards making it
> dependent on SASL v2. We would like to do this for a number of reasons:
>
> 1. Take advantage of the benefits o
Murchison
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 1:54 PM
To: Cyrus Mailing List
Subject: [POLL] Cyrus v2.1 and SASL v2
Cyrus users,
We are getting close to releasing Cyrus v2.1 (yeah, I know I've said
this a bunch of times already) and we are leaning towards making it
dependent on SASL v2. We would li
Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 13:54:11 -0500
> > Ken Murchison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> ken> We are getting close to releasing Cyrus v2.1 (yeah, I know I've said
> ken> this a bunch of times already) and we are leaning towards making it
> ken> dependent
Ken Murchison wrote:
> The biggest (only?) downside for existing installations is that any
> secrets stored in sasldb would have to migrated to the new format. This
> will require resetting all of the users passwords because they can not
> be extracted from the old sasldb (unless you have been u
Ken Murchison wrote:
> The biggest (only?) downside for existing installations is that any
> secrets stored in sasldb would have to migrated to the new format. This
> will require resetting all of the users passwords because they can not
> be extracted from the old sasldb (unless you have been u
Hi,
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 13:54:11 -0500
> Ken Murchison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
ken> We are getting close to releasing Cyrus v2.1 (yeah, I know I've said
ken> this a bunch of times already) and we are leaning towards making it
ken> dependent on SASL v2. We would like to do this for a
Ken Murchison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The biggest (only?) downside for existing installations is that any
> secrets stored in sasldb would have to migrated to the new format. This
> will require resetting all of the users passwords because they can not
> be extracted from the old sasldb (u
Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
> Ken Murchison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The biggest (only?) downside for existing installations is that any
> > secrets stored in sasldb would have to migrated to the new format. This
> > will require resetting all of the users passwords because they can not
Cyrus users,
We are getting close to releasing Cyrus v2.1 (yeah, I know I've said
this a bunch of times already) and we are leaning towards making it
dependent on SASL v2. We would like to do this for a number of reasons:
1. Take advantage of the benefits of SASL v2 (improvements in memory
mana
36 matches
Mail list logo
