>
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Simon Matter wrote:
>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Simon Matter wrote:
>>>
>> BTW: I know that openldap built against SASLv1 is old, but I still
>> want
>> the rpm to be suitable for older platforms. If it's a problem I
>> simply
>> disable ldap pts suppor
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Simon Matter wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Simon Matter wrote:
BTW: I know that openldap built against SASLv1 is old, but I still
want
the rpm to be suitable for older platforms. If it's a problem I simply
disable ldap pts support for those using openldap/SASLv1.
cyrus ima
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Simon Matter wrote:
BTW: I know that openldap built against SASLv1 is old, but I still want
the rpm to be suitable for older platforms. If it's a problem I simply
disable ldap pts support for those using openldap/SASLv1.
cyrus imapd configure checks for openldap version an
>
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Simon Matter wrote:
>
BTW: I know that openldap built against SASLv1 is old, but I still
want
the rpm to be suitable for older platforms. If it's a problem I simply
disable ldap pts support for those using openldap/SASLv1.
>>>
>>> cyrus imapd configure ch
> On Tue, 03 Jan 2006, Simon Matter wrote:
>> could not build postfix with SASLv2 _and_ LDAP support if the installed
>> openldap has been built for SASLv1. This has just resulted in segfaults.
>
> You are experienced what I call the "missing versioned symbols hell". We
> have that fixed in Debian
>
> On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, Simon Matter wrote:
>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005, Milen Dimov wrote:
>>>
Hi,
Does Cyrus IMAPd 2.3.1 supports ldap authorization trought ptloader?
The
configuration parameters "--with-auth=pts --with-pts=ldap" used in the
2.2.x versions are not
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006, Simon Matter wrote:
> could not build postfix with SASLv2 _and_ LDAP support if the installed
> openldap has been built for SASLv1. This has just resulted in segfaults.
You are experienced what I call the "missing versioned symbols hell". We
have that fixed in Debian by force
On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, Simon Matter wrote:
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005, Milen Dimov wrote:
Hi,
Does Cyrus IMAPd 2.3.1 supports ldap authorization trought ptloader? The
configuration parameters "--with-auth=pts --with-pts=ldap" used in the
2.2.x versions are not displayed in 2.3.1 with ./configure --he
>
> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005, Milen Dimov wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Does Cyrus IMAPd 2.3.1 supports ldap authorization trought ptloader? The
>> configuration parameters "--with-auth=pts --with-pts=ldap" used in the
>> 2.2.x versions are not displayed in 2.3.1 with ./configure --help. We
>> use Cyrus IMAPd w
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005, Milen Dimov wrote:
Hi,
Does Cyrus IMAPd 2.3.1 supports ldap authorization trought ptloader? The
configuration parameters "--with-auth=pts --with-pts=ldap" used in the
2.2.x versions are not displayed in 2.3.1 with ./configure --help. We
use Cyrus IMAPd with ldap authorizat
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Tim Pushor wrote:
> Also, what happens if the ptloader dies? will master restart it? I am
> assuming group based authorization will fail at that point. Anything worse?
Yes, as with any other cyrus service.
There is a cache that will keep group based authorization going for a
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Tim Pushor wrote:
> Ok, after doing some hunting, I found out that my imapd was not being
> built with the experimental ldap pts module because:
>
> 1) For some reason my openldap wasn't installing the liblutil & related
> header files, and
It should not. These are openldap
> > >> I notice the imapd.conf man page mentions the 'memberOf' attribute.
> > >> Unless I'm mistaken, that's a bit of a controversial thing, huh?
> > ib> Why is that?
> > Oh, when googling around and digging through various forums I was
> > getting the impression that the 'memberOf' approach wasn'
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Amos Gouaux wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:21:02 -0500 (EST),
> > Igor Brezac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (ib) writes:
>
> >> I notice the imapd.conf man page mentions the 'memberOf' attribute.
> >> Unless I'm mistaken, that's a bit of a controversial thing, huh?
>
> ib> W
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Amos Gouaux wrote:
> >> I notice the imapd.conf man page mentions the 'memberOf' attribute.
> >> Unless I'm mistaken, that's a bit of a controversial thing, huh?
>
> ib> Why is that?
>
> Oh, when googling around and digging through various forums I was
> getting the impression
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:21:02 -0500 (EST),
> Igor Brezac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (ib) writes:
>> I notice the imapd.conf man page mentions the 'memberOf' attribute.
>> Unless I'm mistaken, that's a bit of a controversial thing, huh?
ib> Why is that?
Oh, when googling around and digging thro
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Igor Brezac wrote:
>
> > Good luck building it! ;) This code needs work. When I find some time
> > I'll try to work on it...
> >
> > -Igor
>
> I notice the imapd.conf man page mentions the 'memberOf' attribute.
> Unless I'm mi
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Igor Brezac wrote:
> Good luck building it! ;) This code needs work. When I find some time
> I'll try to work on it...
>
> -Igor
I notice the imapd.conf man page mentions the 'memberOf' attribute.
Unless I'm mistaken, that's a bit of a controversial thing, huh?
That is, wh
Good luck building it! ;) This code needs work. When I find some time
I'll try to work on it...
-Igor
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Amos Gouaux wrote:
> Just curious if anybody out there has been fiddling with the ldap
> ptloader experimental code. Thoughts? Comments? Observations?
> I'm just no
19 matches
Mail list logo
