Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list] 
Message-ID: <20051020185948.GH958@annvix.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 12:59:48 -0600
From: Vincent Danen <vdanen@...sec.ca>
To: xvendor@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: obfuscating e-mails in RPM specs

* Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> [2005-10-20 21:43:27 +0400]:

> 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?

I think it's a good idea, and something I never even thought of, but if
you think about things like CVS and rpm2html listings, etc. it's
probably not a bad idea at all.

What about something like solar_at_owl.openwall.com?  No spaces at all;
or even solar_owl.openwall.com?

I'd like to do the same thing and if there is someone else doing it, I'd
rather it be consistent.

-- 
Annvix - Secure Linux Server: http://annvix.org/
"lynx -source http://linsec.ca/vdanen.asc | gpg --import"
{FEE30AD4 : 7F6C A60C 06C2 4811 FA1C  A2BC 2EBC 5E32 FEE3 0AD4}

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

Please check out the xvendor mailing list charter.