On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 09:04:19PM +0000, Keean Schupke wrote:
> How about we make the key iterations a config variable, and let the
> user make the balance between speed and security?
Yes, that's the idea. Also CPUs have historically gotten faster
year-by-year. Moore's law is looking a bit more feeble lately, we are
getting the feature-size scaling (more cores per die) but the clock-rate
seems to have stalled for a bit.
Finally, the table will not be in the chroot jail, proxymap/proxywrite
won't be chrooted even when other processes are. So some "postfix"
processes will have less access to the table than others.
Anyway this is all coverging to something sensible. The question for
the smtp(8) side is whether making the password hash the key is the
best choice. We could make "nexthop user" the key, and stick the
password hash in the result. That way deletion will actually work.
Otherwise, new passwords will be set before the fail map entry expires,
and the table entry becomes orphaned.
If this change is made, the entry is valid only if not expired, and the
password hash matches. Looks a lot an /etc/shadow entry with a user name
and PKCS#5 v2 password hash, only it perversely records invalid passwords!
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.
To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit
or click the link below:
If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not
send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put
"It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.