4 messages in net.sourceforge.lists.courier-usersRe: [courier-users] Re: shadow vs pam...
FromSent OnAttachments
Ralph DoncasterMar 10, 2002 12:45 pm 
Sam VarshavchikMar 10, 2002 1:09 pm 
Ralph DoncasterMar 10, 2002 10:22 pm 
Sam VarshavchikMar 10, 2002 11:05 pm 
Actions with this message:
Paste this link in email or IM:
Paste this link in email or IM:
Atom feed for this thread
Paste this URL into your reader:
Subject:Re: [courier-users] Re: shadow vs pam authActions...
From:Ralph Doncaster (ral@istop.com)
Date:Mar 10, 2002 10:22:39 pm
List:net.sourceforge.lists.courier-users

On Sun, 10 Mar 2002, Sam Varshavchik wrote:

Ralph Doncaster writes:

the current courier, since the authpam code still uses libc getpwnam (in the preauthpam.c). This was a bit of a surprise, considering the documentation strongly discourages against using authshadow (which uses getpwnam). Am I missing something here?

passwd/shadow begins to break down when the user count begins climbing into thousands.

In other words there is no technical reason to avoid authshadow if authpam is just using pam_pwdb or pam_unix, right?

-Ralph