Hi all, I hope that this will lead to some discussion on better utf-8 support. It seems that ldapsearch does'n like dn's with utf-8 chars in it. see: $ ldapsearch -xLLL "(uid=dwrc)" dn dn:: Y249RMW1ciBDeW1ydSxvdT11c2VyQWNjb3VudHMsZGM9Y3NpcnQsZGM9amFuZXQ= $ locale LANG=en_GB.UTF-8 LC_CTYPE="en_GB.UTF-8" LC_NUMERIC="en_GB.UTF-8" LC_TIME="en_GB.UTF-8" LC_COLLATE="en_GB.UTF-8" LC_MONETARY="en_GB.UTF-8" LC_MESSAGES="en_GB.UTF-8" LC_PAPER="en_GB.UTF-8" LC_NAME="en_GB.UTF-8" LC_ADDRESS="en_GB.UTF-8" LC_TELEPHONE="en_GB.UTF-8" LC_MEASUREMENT="en_GB.UTF-8" LC_IDENTIFICATION="en_GB.UTF-8" LC_ALL= add -u and doesn't get much better: ufn: D\C5\B5r Cymru, userAccounts, csirt.janet While 'getent passwd' via libnss-ldap is more then happy with utf-8 usernames: $ getent passwd dwrc:*:1111:100:Dŵr Cymru:/tmp:/bin/bash (for those that have issues with utf-8 email, the 'w' in Dwr has a hat '^' on). I am told on the irc channel that anything 'strange' is changed to base64. Some thoughts on this: * I don't consider UTF-8 to be strange. * If it really has to be this way then ldap* -D args (and others) should accept the base64 form. * This behaviour should at least have an off switch, so the user can decide on the output form. I was asked to post this issue to the list for discussion. My own position is that I have yet to hear any good reason why utf-8 support should not be a goal. Regards, Thorben