Re: recommended hash table size for caching

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: SASL <sasl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: recommended hash table size for caching
From: "steiner via SASL" <sasl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2024 14:35:57 -0500
References: <17349808410.0BC8.6@composer.cyrus.topicbox.com> <202412231929.4BNJToco002427@hedwig.cmf.nrl.navy.mil>
Reply-to: SASL <sasl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Topicbox-delivery-id: 2:cyrus:406162be-0e38-11eb-b8ad-159c9134e1fa:346a22cc-0eef-11eb-bf52-c982292d11b0:Mb1630f802b1b3d3e516b2354:1:3qF516gcvwrI3Ee4Z8KAAILrc5bXiGQ-UmFw0BonyW8
Topicbox-message-uuid: 21b42cf4-c165-11ef-be4f-c969c291c706
Topicbox-policy-reasoning: allow: sender is a member

Sorry for not being clear. Various clients (wireless via Cisco Ise in this case) do a BIND of the user in LDAP. LDAP then calls saslauthd (-a kerberos5) as we currently don't keep user passwords in LDAP.

References:
- recommended hash table size for caching
  - From: steiner via SASL
- Re: recommended hash table size for caching
  - From: Ken Hornstein via SASL

Prev by Date: Re: recommended hash table size for caching
Previous by thread: Re: recommended hash table size for caching
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Info Cyrus] [Squirrel Mail] [Linux Media] [Yosemite News] [gtk] [KDE] [Gimp on Windows] [Steve's Art]

Powered by Linux