> > Right. Number of options is limited to 100.
> hi, i found the MAX_N_LIST macro and increased it

Please note that if you make it too big, you will get a stack overflow and
elogd will crash.

> however, I am not sure what elog checks for when doing the post through
> form. and the auto-submit script always failed and returns "200 EOF". i can
> get to the login part and grab form entry. its only the submittion failed.

What you can do is run the elog submit utility with the "-v" flag (verbose) and
grap the output. It's HTML code, but you should see any error message there.

> We currently have Elog postings mirrored on to a majordomo email list. 
> Invariably, people on this list reply to the listserv and not to the Elog. 
> Has anyone tried getting emails to a listserv to autoformat and register as
> proper elog entries.  Didn't see any mention of this in the docs or forums.

I personally use Elog *instead* a majordomo email list. You can either specify
a email list in the elogd.cfg file, or you can keep a list of users in the
password file with automatic email notifications, that's how this forum works
for example. But I don't know if you can give up your majordomo list.

> The only common denominator that could possibly cover all contingencies would
> be LDAP authentication.  One way of doing this in a more-or-less universal
> fashion is to offload the auth task from eLog itself and place the burden on
> Apache.  This means figuring out how to get Apache to pass auth info to eLog
> when eLog operates behind Apache.  In the end, anything that can use LDAP as an
> authentication mechanism (like AD) can host eLog - as long as eLog can glom off
> of Apache's ability to do the actual authenticating.  

That sounds to me like a great idea. If anybody gets this working, people would be
grateful if this could be submitted to the "Contributions" section of this forum.

I happened to find something interesting when trying my perl script. it hangs the
elog system with hand-crafted http header.

I also sent email with more detail on this. just want to make sure you are aware of
this.

Qiang

> > however, I am not sure what elog checks for when doing the post through
> > form. and the auto-submit script always failed and returns "200 EOF". i can
> > get to the login part and grab form entry. its only the submittion failed.
> 
> What you can do is run the elog submit utility with the "-v" flag (verbose) and
> grap the output. It's HTML code, but you should see any error message there.

> Ah, you test me!  Perhaps I will attempt to dig into this but I may have to leave the
> integration up to you, Stefan.  Seems that there would be two roads to go:
> 1> Move away from standalone and start to rely on Apache
> 2> Continue with the standalone theme and build in LDAP authentication (which could
> also give you groups functions as well). 
> 
> I think I would opt for <2>

<1> would only make sense if the functionality could be completely implemented inside
Apache, without (much) modification of elog. Otherwise I agree that <2> would be more
following the general lines of elog. I was considering to implement PAM (pluggable
authorization module) support into elog, which is quite easy to implement and gives you
to power of having LDAP, Kerberos, Unix username, Windows NT Domain and much more. But
that would them be restricted to elog running under Linux (and Solaris I guess), since
I'm not aware of a PAM implementation under Windows.

Implementing LDAP directly into elog gives me the problem that we don't use LDAP
authentication at our institute (it's Kerberos in fact). So I would have to set up my own
LDAP server for testing, plus we at our institute don't have a direct benefit from that,
which would make it hard for me to justify to spend time on.

> > Ah, you test me!  Perhaps I will attempt to dig into this but I may have to leave the
> > integration up to you, Stefan.  Seems that there would be two roads to go:
> > 1> Move away from standalone and start to rely on Apache
> > 2> Continue with the standalone theme and build in LDAP authentication (which could
> > also give you groups functions as well). 
> > 
> > I think I would opt for <2>
> 
> <1> would only make sense if the functionality could be completely implemented inside
> Apache, without (much) modification of elog. Otherwise I agree that <2> would be more
> following the general lines of elog. I was considering to implement PAM (pluggable
> authorization module) support into elog, which is quite easy to implement and gives you
> to power of having LDAP, Kerberos, Unix username, Windows NT Domain and much more. But
> that would them be restricted to elog running under Linux (and Solaris I guess), since
> I'm not aware of a PAM implementation under Windows.
> 
> Implementing LDAP directly into elog gives me the problem that we don't use LDAP
> authentication at our institute (it's Kerberos in fact). So I would have to set up my own
> LDAP server for testing, plus we at our institute don't have a direct benefit from that,
> which would make it hard for me to justify to spend time on.


Yes, PAM is highly dependent upon Unix and PAM would work under Solaris just fine.  Your
problem lies with Windows - hence my LDAP suggestion.

And LDAP isn't an easy thing to setup, but I bet there is a quick and dirty "test" bench that
could be rigged using OpenLDAP.  Like I indicated, I'll see what I can dig up on this front -
but I make no promises wrt delivery time!

> I think you should be using tcp_hostname instead of gethostname if it is 
> specified.

Sorry my late reply, I was ill for some time. I implemented your suggestion in
revision 1.522 which is available from CVS.

Note that there is also the "URL = xxx" option in the configuration file which
lets you specify the whole URL including the host name.