Subject: Re: PAM
To: Dan Melomedman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Jim Wise <email@example.com>
Date: 09/25/2002 19:09:11
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Dan Melomedman wrote:
>Bill Studenmund wrote:
>> Is your objection to PAM that there should be an easy way to write
>> modules? Because you can do that with PAM; just write the auth system you
>> are describing as a PAM module!
>I doubt writing a PAM module would be so easy, or portable. But who
>knows; maybe you guys will be able to roll out something which is PAM
>but at the same time as easy to use, debug, etc. I have yet to find
>something like this, so I have my doubts.
The large number of PAM modules out there, compared to the small number
of programs using exec-chaining suggests otherwise.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----