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

Re: pop3 and sendmail?


Since you want to avoid needing NSS, you then plan on patching /bin/ls and
just about anything that needs to look up a username from a uid, and so
forth, to use PAM as well, right? And you're going to handle all the cases
where the backend you're using crashes, intentionally delays requests,
locks you out, or otherwise misbehaves when a TON of requests come in
simply because I receive a few peices of mail for various users and
someone also happens to ls -alR /. Of course not, and neither are the
people who actually are writing the code -- they've shown that they prefer
to go the NSS route and write things like the ldap nss module to back

PAM may be a nice hammer, but the problem you describe just doesn't look
like a nail to me... It's NSS's job and the amout of "messing" you have to
do is very small, you install the ldap (or whatever) nss module at the
same time as you install the pam half of things, and you edit
/etc/nsswitch.conf or whatever it's called. All done. No sources to patch.

Also, I'm sure having it delivered to you just the way you want with even
less system administration sounds good to _you_ but keep in mind that it
needs to sound good to the person _writing_ the code. ;-) That's the neat
part about free software.


On Sun, 11 Apr 1999, Matthew Hixson wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Apr 1999, Hossein S. Zadeh wrote:
> >
> > This is what you suggest:
> > You want to see if a local user exists (using mechanism "A"). Then if the
> > user exists you want to see where the mailbox is (using mechanism "B").
> > 
> > This is what is done:
> > You see if a user exists using machanism "C". the answer is either "No",
> > in which case you bounce the email. Or the answer is "Yes, the mailbox is
> > /blah/blah", in which case you store the mail in the mailbox.
> > 
> > Using the latter method not only you have used one mechanism (less bugs,
> > less maintenance, etc.), but also you have only made one call to an
> > external mechanism (faster).
> > 
> > Is it just me or others do not see any benifit in doing the former either?
> The benefit is that I only want to use PAM and not have to mess with setting up
> anything else.
>   -M@
> --
> Matthew Hixson - CIO			"Noone's ever tried this before." 
> FroZenWave Communications		"That's why its going to work." 
> http://www.frozenwave.com			-- Morpheus and Neo

"[T]hey said something to the effect that Linux has 'the tendency not to 
crash.' ... It's like me listing 'the tendency not to murder people' as one of
my good character traits. :-> It seems that people have grown so accustomed to
buggy OS's that when Linux simply does what it's supposed to do, it comes 
across as something new and different." Scott Webster on linux-biz 20 Feb 1999

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