It would be nice for the sake of not conflicting to have the PAM service name not be imap. Especially as the same service name is used for pop as well :)
My recommendation would be to use dovecot instead. Any other opinions?
Jeremy
On Mon, 2003-06-23 at 19:40, Jeremy Katz wrote:
It would be nice for the sake of not conflicting to have the PAM service name not be imap. Especially as the same service name is used for pop as well :)
I could change it to use imap for imap and pop3 for pop3.
My recommendation would be to use dovecot instead. Any other opinions?
Well, I'm not really against that either.
On Mon, 2003-06-23 at 12:48, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Mon, 2003-06-23 at 19:40, Jeremy Katz wrote:
It would be nice for the sake of not conflicting to have the PAM service name not be imap. Especially as the same service name is used for pop as well :)
I could change it to use imap for imap and pop3 for pop3.
My recommendation would be to use dovecot instead. Any other opinions?
Well, I'm not really against that either.
The primary advantage of this being that then there are no worries about pesky file conflicts between dovecot and uw-imap. Plus it makes it more obvious exactly which imap the pam config is for.
Cheers,
Jeremy
PS dovecot lands in rawhide tomorrow
On Mon, 2003-06-23 at 12:48, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Mon, 2003-06-23 at 19:40, Jeremy Katz wrote:
It would be nice for the sake of not conflicting to have the PAM service name not be imap. Especially as the same service name is used for pop as well :)
I could change it to use imap for imap and pop3 for pop3.
My recommendation would be to use dovecot instead. Any other opinions?
Well, I'm not really against that either.
how about have dovecot-imap and dovecot-pop
just in case we want different auth mechanism for each.
-sv
participants (3)
-
Jeremy Katz
-
seth vidal
-
Timo Sirainen