[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Pammed qpopper?

Chris Dent wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 1997, Andrew G. Morgan wrote:
> > There were statements made a while back that someone had made a POP daemon
> > that seriously messed with PAM to the point that it might (and did) break
> > with a newer version of the library.. This may or may not be the one..
> I hope it's not mine. If it is someone tell me so I can recover from
> the shame and ignominy. Oh yeah, and fix it too.

Sorry, I've just seen a _lot_ of email about pop and figured that someone
was doing something about it... A long silence and then a "how do I get it
to work..." message.  I jumped to the conclusion (without paying much
attention to it) that it never got fixed.  I stand corrected.  The patch
that Bruno pointed me to seems fairly reasonable - given the limits of most
POP clients.

> I made mine using the pam-0.54-4 rpm that comes with Redhat 4.1. It

I can think of no reason why it will not work with pam-0.58-3 too.

In general, you might think of including a sample /etc/pam.d/qpop file with
your source.  Given the fact that there is now a file-per-service based
configuration, I fully anticipate rpms will come with a "suggested" default
config file - plug and play authentication.


               Linux-PAM, libpwdb, Orange-Linux and Linux-GSS

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index] []