From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/14637 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Edward J. Sabol" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: no forced authinfo in 5.6.2? Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 14:22:42 -0500 Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: <199803161922.OAA28792@alderaan.gsfc.nasa.gov> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035153797 17359 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 22:43:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 22:43:17 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: from xemacs.org (xemacs.cs.uiuc.edu [128.174.252.16]) by altair.xemacs.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA29493 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 11:32:00 -0800 Original-Received: from gizmo.hpc.uh.edu (gizmo.hpc.uh.edu [129.7.102.31]) by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA21451 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 13:26:30 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (sina.hpc.uh.edu [129.7.3.5]) by gizmo.hpc.uh.edu (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAN20749; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 14:01:17 -0600 Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Mon, 16 Mar 1998 13:23:02 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from claymore.vcinet.com (claymore.vcinet.com [208.205.12.23]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA00569 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 13:22:55 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: (qmail 28889 invoked by uid 504); 16 Mar 1998 19:22:43 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 28886 invoked from network); 16 Mar 1998 19:22:43 -0000 Original-Received: from alderaan.gsfc.nasa.gov (128.183.127.237) by claymore.vcinet.com with SMTP; 16 Mar 1998 19:22:43 -0000 Original-Received: by alderaan.gsfc.nasa.gov (950413.SGI.8.6.12/951211.SGI.AUTO) id OAA28792; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 14:22:42 -0500 Original-To: Gnus Mailing List In-reply-to: (message from Hallvard B Furuseth on Sat, 14 Mar 1998 01:06:40 +0100) Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:14637 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:14637 Excerpts from mail: (14-Mar-98) Re: no forced authinfo in 5.6.2? by Hallvard B Furuseth > If nntp-authinfo-file is .netrc-compatible just because you wanted to > reuse existing code to parse .netrc: > > I don't see any reason *not* to send authinfo to a machine mentioned > in .authinforc. If I have an authinfo password there, why would I > want not to use it? I thought the same thing, but Lars convinced me otherwise: ------- Start of exceprted message ------- To: ding@gnus.org Subject: Re: feedback on AUTHINFO in qgnus-0.27 References: <199802191555.KAA18753@alderaan.gsfc.nasa.gov> From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen Date: 20 Feb 1998 03:31:45 +0100 "Edward J. Sabol" writes: > It sounds more complicated than it really is. Basically, if there's an entry > for the server in ~/.authinforc, then send authinfo for that server whether > challenged or not. Hm. Some servers only challenge when entering certain groups. The user may wish to stick the machine name and the user name into the file, but not the password, and it would be annoying if that would lead Gnus to send the authinfo (and promt the user for that unnecessary password) even if the user doesn't want to read the password-protected groups. ------- End of excerpted message ------- > If nntp-authinfo-file is .netrc-compatible so we can point it to .netrc: > > Bummer. > > * I can't have different FTP user/password and NNTP user/password > on the same machine. > > * If I insert `machine some.server login hbf password newspassword', > then the `ftp some.server' command will try to log in with my NNTP > username and password. I think you miss the point. You *can* point gnus-authinfo-file to your ~/.netrc, but you don't *have* to. The default has them being different files. If your NNTP password is different from your FTP password, then use separate files for NNTP and FTP. > Maybe this format will fix it: > > machine some.server login hbf password ftppassword > machine nntp/some.server login hbf password newspassword Yuck. Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen writes: > Well, I didn't feel it was resolved. Should I add a "force" tag? Lars, as long as the "force" tag is an optional part of the syntax (i.e., Gnus defaults to "force no" if there is no "force" tag present) in order to keep some semblance of compatibility with ~/.netrc, I see no problem with it. Besides, I also see many advantages to this syntax. When people post to the mailing list asking how to make Gnus automatically send authinfo for certain servers, I will get a great thrill out of replying to them and writing "Use the FORCE tag, Luke!" :-) Please go ahead and implement it, Lars. Later, Ed