From: Wietse Venema (wietseporcupine.org)
Date: Sun Dec 02 2007 - 19:19:16 CST

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Victor Duchovni:
> On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 04:44:07PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > If the proxymap service had a "put" operation, would that suffice?
> > Adding "put" support involves less code than adding an entire daemon
> > and client module to Postfix. This would require a new parameter
> > proxy_write_maps that complements the existing proxy_read_maps
> > feature.
>
> Proxymap has a process limit > 1, and does not support in memory tables. I
> don't think it fits the bill...

I don't think that in-memory tables make sense for auth-failure
caching. Presumably, auth failure needs to be able to survive
a reboot, "postfix reload", etc.

        Wietse

> > > > Is "auth_cache" really a good name for a service that remembers
> > > > password failures?
> > >
> > > Perhaps auth_failure_cache? I didn't want it to be too long, as all
> > > the others have short names.
> >
> > With proxymap, we sidestep that problem. One only has to specify
> > the map name; the proxy_write_maps parameter would automagically
> > whitelist the map that is used for auth failures, so no additional
> > configuration would be needed.
>
> We would need a single-instance clone of proxymap, and perhaps also
> in-memory support. Also setsid() to avoid getting clobbered mid-update.
>
> --
> Viktor.
>
> Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
> Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.
>
> To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit
> http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below:
> <mailto:majordomopostfix.org?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users>
>
> If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not
> send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put
> "It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.
>
>

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]