OSEC

Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com
 
Subject: Re: CRAM-MD5 problem SOLVED :-)
From: Marek Habersack (grendelvip.net.pl)
Date: Mon Jun 19 2000 - 15:23:51 CDT

** On Jun 19, Liviu Daia scribbled:
> On 19 June 2000, Marek Habersack <grendelvip.net.pl> wrote:
> > ** On Jun 19, Wietse Venema scribbled:
> >
> > > > > An API that produce inconsistent results across platforms can't
> > > > > be used for a portable solution.
> > >
> > > > It just seemed to me that it would be better to replace the
> > > > gethostname() call with uname(2) in saslpasswd and use the same
> > > > call also in postfix - that way it will give both programs the
> > > > same results on the same box, and that was the whole problem - the
> > > > two programs used different default values.
> > >
> > > Whatever the local realm is, it should be configurable.
> >
> > Defintely. The problem lies only in providin a sensible default that
> > is agreed between the two sides - sasl and postfix. I suspect most
> > people will use the defaults.
> [...]
>
> I'm sorry, but I still fail to see what are you trying to accomplish
> here. The realm is already configurable. If, for some obscure reasons,
> you need it to point to the non-FQDN name of your host, just set
> $smtpd_sasl_local_domain to that name; end of problem. Or unset
> $myhostname in Postfix; it will complain, but it will still work; end
> of problem again. Both Postfix and cyrus-sasl expect gethostname(2) to
> return a FQDN, and this is, arguably, a reasonable expectation.
yes, but if so, then why postfix used a FQDN while saslpasswd used a bare
hostname? That's what I'm trying to accomplish - so that the two sides use
the same mechanism giving the same result on the same machine every time it
is used. My point is that the default used in both cases should be the same.

marek

  • application/pgp-signature attachment: stored