Re: Exim and LDAP
It sounds like you should be nervous.
I can only think of 2 short term solutions and one long term
solution.
Depending on what you have stored in your current LDAP directory
one of these fixes might work:
Short term solution:
1. Write a script to query all the users and modify each entry on the
fly.
(I know that Perl and Python will do this. I think Ruby can also).
a. Get the current email
b. Get the first and last field
c. Slap them together with a join statement
d. Do a modify with libnet-ldap-perl that
modifies the entry so that ldap holds 2 email entries.
2. slap-cat the file
This will create a messy output but any scripting language will
parse it.
You will need these three fields.
>dn:
>sn:
>givenname:
>mail:mail@whatever.org
from that you create a modify.ldif file
dn:
mail: mail@whatever.org
mail: first.last@whatever.org
3. not good enough ?
Then look at this:
http://www.exim.org/pipermail/exim-users/Week-of-Mon-19990531/012788.html
long term hack solution (catches 80%-90% of all people)
1. write a script that queries all the entries in ldap
it keeps the dn: , sn:, givenname:, and mail: of accounts with only one mail.
Then it modifies the account so that after running they have 2 email
addresses associated.
limitations does not get name changes.
2. use the short time solutions and then get a maintenance contract on the
server and subcontract the work to me ;-)
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 09:41:34AM -0500, tps@unslept.com wrote:
> Folks,
> I'm trying to get a business set up with a Debian system running Exim
> talking to LDAP for user lookups. This is working fine, but right after
> I was ready to get them to sign off on the project, they came up with
> "Oh, does the old feature of First.Last@mycompany.com still work? We have
> to have that!" Well, short of creating thousands of new aliases, and a
> way for them to maintain them, can anyone figure out a creative way
> in an Exim/LDAP filter to match the localpart of 'First.Last' against
> the sn and givenname attributes? I've started at this so long, I'm
> going nuts...
Ted Knab
Reply to: