[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4357E5A8.2010004@mvista.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 13:44:56 -0500
From: Mark Hatle <mhatle@...sta.com>
To: xvendor@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: obfuscating e-mails in RPM specs
We just use a generic <source@...sta.com> email address in our packages.
This (is supposed to) go to a generic mailing list watched by our
Marketing/Technical Support folks.. (customers have a difference address
to contact.)
But that being said, I'm not sure if anyone actually uses that
information for anything automatic. If they do, I'd be interested to
know what.
As far at the obfuscating email addresses goes.. I think your proposal
would work well.
--Mark
Solar Designer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We're about to start obfuscating e-mail addresses in our RPM spec files,
> and we intend to update all of our existing specs accordingly.
>
> The syntax we might use is this:
>
> * Sat Sep 24 2005 Solar Designer <solar at owl.openwall.com> 3.6.1p2-owl15
>
> My questions are:
>
> 1. Are others doing the same? What syntax is being used?
>
> 2. Is this known to break any software processing spec files or RPMs?
> In particular, I guess the extra spaces might break the separation of
> fields, so should they be avoided? Maybe use dashes instead?
>
> 3. Is it even worthwhile to try to come up with a common syntax for this?
>
> Thanks,
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
xvendor mailing list charter.
