This is a discussion on Re: [AMaViS-user] regarding LDAP lookups in newer amavis versions within the Amavis User forums, part of the Anti-Spam and Anti-Virus Related Forums category; On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 05:57:49PM +0100, Mark Martinec wrote: > Jogi, > > > Just working ...
|
|||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
|||
|
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 05:57:49PM +0100, Mark Martinec wrote:
> Jogi, > > > Just working on tests with current amavis from Debian/etch (2.4.2) to > > replace a completely outdated installation I found. When trying to turn > > on LDAP lookups I run into the problem described as follows in the > > changelog: > > INCOMPATIBILITY: > > - removed some legacy $*_ldap variables, as they are no longer needed; > > These variables were still declared but ignored in 2.2.0 for > > compatibility with older amavisd.conf files. Such variables need to > > be removed from the amavisd.conf if they are still present there > > from older versions, otherwise Perl will complain with 'Global > > symbol ... requires explicit package name"; > > What was the reason for disabling legacy variables? It seems that I am > > forced to use the amavis LDAP scheme now (which would mean the running > > custom LDAP installation) and I don't quite like that. Is there a way to > > use LDAP lookups with custom schemes? > > The LDAP module was rewritten for 2.2.0 (November 2004) and updated > for 2.3.2 (June 2005), both by Michael Hall. I believe the main reason > was to avoid one query per attribute, and do a single query for all > attributes (matching a filter), then fulfill attribute queries from > a cached result. Seems in this process the decoupling of attribute > names from their function was abandoned - probably because many new > attributes were introduced, which would call for a bunch of additional > global variables, which didn't appear to be nice or necessary. > > I think it wouldn't be to difficult to re-introduce such indirection, > but this time not through individual variables, but through some > perl associative array. Since I'm not using LDAP myself: any volunteers > to do it and test it? Is Michael still around? Yes, I'm still lurking around, actually I had already replied to this. Has something similar been done for SQL or do you have any ideas, thoughts on how you would like to see this done? -- Mike Hall San Juan Island, WA System Admin - Rock Island Technology Solutions <mikeh@rockisland.com> System Admin - riverside.org, ssdd.org <mhall@riverside.org> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ AMaViS-user mailing list AMaViS-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/...fo/amavis-user AMaViS-FAQ:http://www.amavis.org/amavis-faq.php3 AMaViS-HowTos:http://www.amavis.org/howto/ |