From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Apr 28 11:46:47 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from server2.highperformance.net (ip30.gte4.rb1.bel.nwlink.com [209.20.215.30]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 547A437B41D for ; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 11:46:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by server2.highperformance.net (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g3SIk3Bl021684; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 11:46:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jcwells@highperformance.net) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 11:46:03 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jason C. Wells" X-Sender: jcw@server2.highperformance.net To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How much PAM is enough? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 28 Apr 2002, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > "Jason C. Wells" writes: > > For example, there exists a module "pam_nologin". Why would I want to use > > a PAM module when FreeBSD supports this natively? > > 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. (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.) Thanks, Jason C. Wells To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message