On 11/29/2010 02:15 AM, Roberto Polli wrote:
> I think the point is quite real.
>
> The "bind" operation can be the large part of traffic for authentication
> systems.
>
> Could be worth to file an issue/wish on bugzilla and continue the discussion
> there?
Yes. Please file a bug/rfe at bugzilla.r
e 389 Directory server project.
>> Subject: Re: [389-users] Bind to consumer binds to provider as well
>>
>>
>>> I can imagine though that with this approach you can potentially have
>>>
>> more auth attempts than is allowed for.
>>
>>
389-users] Bind to consumer binds to provider as well
>
> > I can imagine though that with this approach you can potentially have
> more auth attempts than is allowed for.
> >
> I guess we need some sort of fine grained approach, so that you would only
> chain certain operations
Gerrard Geldenhuis wrote:
>>> When I do a bind to the consumer(slave) I also see a bind to the
>>> provider(master) this seems really silly. My understanding is that
>>> this behaviour is caused by needing to centrally store login attempts.
>>> I have raised this matter previously but just wanted t
> >
> > When I do a bind to the consumer(slave) I also see a bind to the
> > provider(master) this seems really silly. My understanding is that
> > this behaviour is caused by needing to centrally store login attempts.
> > I have raised this matter previously but just wanted to double check
> > tha
