PAM Module Patch and Feature

[Frank Cusack]

On March 22, 2007 9:43:21 AM -0600 David Mitchell <mitchell at ucar.edu> wrote:
> I just hadn't gotten around to replying yet. I think it looks good.
> Stomping on the retry value was an accident on my part. Maybe it could be
> made more explicit by including them in the bit value list? Then it would
> be more obvious that 128 is the next unused value?

great idea.
-frnk