[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: slurpd vs ldapsync

To: Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>
Subject: Re: slurpd vs ldapsync
From: Emmanuel Dreyfus <manu@netbsd.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:23:55 +0000
Cc: Michael Pelletier <mpelletier@intechjanus.com>, openldap-software@openldap.org
Content-disposition: inline
In-reply-to: <460244CF.4020207@symas.com>
References: <E3C082F2-B6D4-45A7-8729-5E47B683114A@intechjanus.com> <460244CF.4020207@symas.com>
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i

On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 01:56:47AM -0700, Howard Chu wrote:
> There are no benefits to using slurpd. I could elaborate but I don't 
> wish to violate the confidentiality of your email or disseminate the 
> information to any unintended recipients.

Can you elaborate in a reply to me? I have no 
braindead-automatically-attached-policy about e-mail confidentiality :-)

I have set up something using slurpd because I understood that using
replsync, the replica would need an access on the master, whereas slurpd
allowed a pure push method, where the replicas have no right to connect to
the master (the master can even be firewalled)

-- 
Emmanuel Dreyfus
manu@netbsd.org

Follow-Ups:
- Re: slurpd vs ldapsync
  - From: Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>

References:
- slurpd vs ldapsync
  - From: Michael Pelletier <mpelletier@intechjanus.com>
- Re: slurpd vs ldapsync
  - From: Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>

Prev by Date: Re: slurpd vs ldapsync
Next by Date: Re: slurpd vs ldapsync
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread