On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 10:04:29PM -0500, David DeSimone wrote:
> Eugene M. Kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I haven't tried this myself, but you may want to try using
> > "unique:" instead of "require" as the policy level
>
> After reading up on this behavior, I gave it a try, replacing all
Eugene M. Kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I haven't tried this myself, but you may want to try using
> "unique:" instead of "require" as the policy level
After reading up on this behavior, I gave it a try, replacing all
"require" policies with "unique". I found that there was no need to
set a
I haven't tried this myself, but you may want to try using
"unique:" instead of "require" as the policy level, with
set to a unique policy identifier, which is an integer you
can pick between 1 and 32767 inclusive, for each security policy. This
makes the security policy "claim" the security a
