After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 236008 - evolution confused if the same LDAP host added twice
evolution confused if the same LDAP host added twice
Status: RESOLVED INCOMPLETE
Product: evolution
Classification: Applications
Component: Contacts
pre-1.5 (obsolete)
Other other
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: evolution-addressbook-maintainers
Evolution QA team
Depends on:
Blocks: 327508 327510
 
 
Reported: 2002-12-20 22:29 UTC by Marcin Kasperski
Modified: 2013-09-10 13:56 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Description Marcin Kasperski 2002-12-20 22:29:47 UTC 
During my experiments with the LDAP server I happened to add the same
server twice - anonymously and with authorization. It seems to me evolution
confused those two - I was not asked for the password at all, from slapd
traces I could see that whichever directory I used, the searches were
executed anonymously.

Steps to reproduce the problem:
1. Configure/find some LDAP server which can be used both anonymously and
with login
2. Create two Directory Server entries, both responding to the same server
but with different access settings.
3. Try to force evolution to request the password.

I am not sure whether this happens always or something matters (the name I
give, the order in which servers are added).
Comment 1 Sushma Rai 2005-08-24 08:15:35 UTC 
Can you use some recent version of evolution and try this now?
Comment 2 Devashish Sharma 2006-01-19 08:47:55 UTC 
Closing this bug report as no further information has been provided. Please feel free to reopen this bug if you can provide the information asked for.
Thanks!
Comment 3 Marcin Kasperski 2006-06-08 16:52:53 UTC 
I have not been using evolution for about 3 years, so I am not able to make new tests or provide additional details. Nevertheless, I think that the test I described above is rather easy to execute, so maybe it would make sense to perform it before closing the bug....