Hi Peter,
- Peter Clark <peter-clark@bethel.edu>, Monday, January 10, 2005, 12:34:04 PM:
On Monday 10 January 2005 11:10, Timo Boettcher wrote:
But that would only work, if dc was an attribute of my user (which it is not), wouldn't it? Yes, that would probably have to be the case. Theoretically, this kind of problem could be solved by being more specific in your base dn (specifying "base = dc=domain.tld, o=myorganization" but I don't think that Dovecot allows things like %d in the "base" option of dovecot-ldap.conf, so you couldn't have "base = dc=%d, o=myorganization". (Someone correct me if I'm wrong.)
As I read the sourcecode, thats not possible just now. But unless I am wrong (which I could quite possible be) the change to make this possible would be about one line to do variable expansion on the search-base.
However, it looks like you are using a custom schema. The easiest waywould just be to edit the schema and add an attribute for the user's full email and be done with it.
I omitted that attribute on purpose, because of the complications of redundant and possibly conflicting data. Now the schema of my ldap-db makes any conflicting data (like two users with the same mailaddress, a user with a mail-address of a domain other than his own) impossible without need for checking this in any administrative frontend. Thats the beauty of ldap in this case. If you have a better schema, please tell me.
If the mountain will not come to Mohammed, Mohammed will go to the mountain. Or something like that.
Hm. Why drop a schema that is perfectly valid and matches the spirit of ldap just because the ldap-software is not ldap-enabled enough to use it?
Timo