Date: 28 Apr 2002 21:18:48 +0200 From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> To: "Jason C. Wells" <jcwells@highperformance.net> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How much PAM is enough? Message-ID: <xzp7kmreinb.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0204281141560.21388-100000@server2.highperformance.net> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0204281141560.21388-100000@server2.highperformance.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Jason C. Wells" <jcwells@highperformance.net> writes: > On 28 Apr 2002, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > > Because pam_nologin *is* how FreeBSD supports /etc/nologin. > It does? Pam_nologin doesn't appear in the default /etc/pam.conf. There > must be more to PAM than is readily apparent from the config files. It does in -CURRENT. > (BTW, I happened across your message in the archives that showed the > -CURRENT is using pam.d now. I expect -STABLE to do so soon, so I have > adjusted my config.) No, I will not MFC any of my PAM work. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzp7kmreinb.fsf>