I can understand how QPWDLMTCHR would be a little tough to implement into
QPWDRULES. The format is incompatible. In that case, however, they
should have not started ignoring it. They could have easily added a
*RQDDIFn where n is
0=Can be the same as old passwords
1=Cannot be the same as last 32
2=Cannot be the same as last 24
3=Cannot be the same as last 18
4=Cannot be the same as last 12
5=Cannot be the same as last 10
6=Cannot be the same as last 8
7=Cannot be the same as last 6
8=Cannot be the same as last 4
Or something more sensible, (like 4=4). And dropped QPWDRQDDIF, but they
didn't. Why drop something they didn't handle right here (without having
to delve into exit points) in QPWDLMTCHR yet not handle QPWDRQDDIF?
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2026 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact
[javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
