[Date Prev][Date Next]
RE: Escaping the special meaning of + in attribute value
> > > [root]# ldapsearch "firstname.lastname@example.org"
> > > userid=dutest,dc=unilim,dc=unilim,dc=fr
> > > givenname=pdutest
> > > email@example.com
> > Yes I did test with out the " and \ it works. But what I am
> saying is
> > according to the LDAP standard to escape the special
> meaning of + we have to
> > enclose it in " or escape it with \.
> Isn't that only for DNs, not for all attribute types? The
> search example
> above doesn't match an attribute type that is part of the DN.
Yes, that's on DN and that's what I am talking about if you look in my
original mail the above example was given by Eric.
For your reference here is my original mail:
We are using LDAP to store subscriber information such as vpimAddress,
mailRecipient etc. Our vpimAddress and mailRecipient values start with +. To
escape the special meaning of + in the dn, while adding the entries I am
enclosing the mailRecipient value in quotes. For example to add a node with
mailRecipient value +firstname.lastname@example.org I give the dn as
According to the LDAP standard given in rfc1779 the server has to parse the
dn string and put the value for dn in the database as
email@example.com,o=myorganization,c=US. But Openldap
doesn't seem to do that, it puts the dn in the database with quotes around
it. I tried using \ also it puts the \ it doesn't parse the string and
remove the \. Is there a flag that I have to set in Openldap for it to parse
the string and ignore the quotes or \. It doesn't even complain if I try to
add it with out the quotes. The problem I am having with this is some
entries were added using quotes and some entries were added using \ so for
doing my search I have to give the exact way I added the entry either using
quotes or \ in order for me to get back the result otherwise it says
nosuchobject. If the standards were followed I won't have a problem using
either of them because it doesn't put the quotes or \ in the dn in the
Does somebody have a solution for this. Is there a flag to set to enable the
string parsing, or is it a bug.
Suneetha R. Nalla