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

Re: PATCH: back-sock

On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 09:01:59AM -0700, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
> Passing the combined (TLS+SASL) SSF would be better.

Is that conn->c_ssf (= conn->c_authz.sai_ssf)?

At the moment I have

        if( conn->c_dn.bv_len ) {
                fprintf( fp, "binddn: %s\n", conn->c_dn.bv_val);
        if( conn->c_peer_name.bv_len ) {
                fprintf( fp, "peername: %s\n", conn->c_peer_name.bv_val);
#ifdef HAVE_TLS
        if( conn->c_is_tls ) {
                fprintf( fp, "tls: 1\n"); /* FIXME: ldif for boolean? */

so presumably I can replace that last bit with ssf: %u (and no need to wrap
it with #ifdef HAVE_TLS) - is that correct?