On Thursday 01 November 2007 12:15:28 Hadmut Danisch wrote:
Buchan Milne wrote:
> So wouldn't the existing {SASL} scheme for userPassword (which allows a
> simple bind to be authenticated against a SASL identity) be sufficient?
Not really, because SASL is not just a server plugin, it requires the
client to have SASL (and the plugins) as well. Unfortunately, this is
not the case in most scenarios.
So you are unaware of the {SASL} scheme for userPassword, where slapd receives
a simple bind, and tries to authenticate the user (as a SASL client) via the
SASL mechanism with the identity following the scheme identifier in the
userPassword attribute.
It is documented to some degree in the FAQ-o-matic.
Regards,
Buchan