Icecast - Feb 2005 - user Authentication - fail to add an user

Hi fellow streamers ;-)

I am trying to add an user authenticated mount point to our Icecast2.2
server.
I include the relevant section of my config file below.

<mount>
        <mount-name>/stream1</mount-name>
        <max-listeners>100</max-listeners>
        <fallback-mount>/test</fallback-mount>
	<fallback-override>1</fallback-override>

  	<mount-name>/stream2.ogg</mount-name>
        <authentication type="htpasswd">
        <option name="filename" value="myauth"/>
         <option name="allow_duplicate_users"
value="0"/>
        </authentication>
 </mount>

So far so good. When I start Icecast the mounts so in the admin page. If I
try to add an user the following error appears
User add failed - check the icecast error log
The log files states ;
INFO admin/admin_handle_request Received admin command manageauth.xsl on
mount "/stream2.ogg"
WARN auth/auth_get_htpasswd_userlist Failed to open authentication database
"myauth": Permission denied

So probably I have something overlooked ...but no clue where to look for.
I trust some of you will recognize where I have screwed-up.

Thanks in advance!
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.4 - Release Date: 1-2-2005

Ron Blok wrote:
> <mount>
>        <mount-name>/stream1</mount-name>
>        <max-listeners>100</max-listeners>
>        <fallback-mount>/test</fallback-mount>
> 	<fallback-override>1</fallback-override>
>
>  	<mount-name>/stream2.ogg</mount-name>
hmmm.  Not that it will necessarily help, but I'dve thought each mountpoint 
specification would need to go in its own <mount></mount> block. 
Maybe I'm
wrong?

Geoff.

On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 14:46, Geoff Shang wrote:
> Ron Blok wrote:
> 
> > <mount>
> >        <mount-name>/stream1</mount-name>
> >        <max-listeners>100</max-listeners>
> >        <fallback-mount>/test</fallback-mount>
> > 	<fallback-override>1</fallback-override>
> >
> >  	<mount-name>/stream2.ogg</mount-name>
> 
> hmmm.  Not that it will necessarily help, but I'dve thought each
mountpoint
> specification would need to go in its own <mount></mount>
block.  Maybe I'm
> wrong?
no, you are not wrong

karl.