Re: [HACKERS] Kerberos brokenness and oops question in 8.1beta2

2005-10-08 Thread Magnus Hagander
> The point is I'm having a hard time seeing what the actual > gain is in not changing it back. If the principal name > mismatches, we're going to get rejected anyway, so it's not > really a problem there. Even though the gain in changing it > back isn't all that big either, why should we intro

Re: [HACKERS] Kerberos brokenness and oops question in 8.1beta2

2005-10-08 Thread Magnus Hagander
> > Anyway. This makes it impossible for a 8.1 client to > connect to a 8.0 > > server, or a 8.0 client to a 8.1 server, in any case where > the service > > name has changed - such as a win32 active directory deployment, but > > I'm sure many others as well. > > How important is that really?

Re: [HACKERS] Kerberos brokenness and oops question in 8.1beta2

2005-10-07 Thread Tom Lane
"Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Anyway. This makes it impossible for a 8.1 client to connect to a 8.0 > server, or a 8.0 client to a 8.1 server, in any case where the service > name has changed - such as a win32 active directory deployment, but I'm > sure many others as well. How i