From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Michael Albinus Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#34145: 27.0.50; Writing .authinfo needs better confirmation Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 07:26:27 +0200 Message-ID: <87lftt9nng.fsf@gmx.de> References: <8736pn8uw0.fsf@gmx.de> <87mue9zhk5.fsf@gnus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="90771"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: 34145@debbugs.gnu.org To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Oct 10 07:27:38 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iIQzC-000NX4-5J for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 07:27:38 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34020 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iIQz9-0006oo-PJ for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 01:27:37 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:40020) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iIQyd-0006mm-Lu for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 01:27:04 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iIQyc-00078K-Fe for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 01:27:03 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:46118) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iIQyc-00078C-8h for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 01:27:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iIQyc-0003yT-35 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 01:27:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Michael Albinus Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 05:27:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 34145 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 34145-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B34145.157068520215252 (code B ref 34145); Thu, 10 Oct 2019 05:27:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 34145) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Oct 2019 05:26:42 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54939 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iIQyI-0003xv-II for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 01:26:42 -0400 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.19]:53515) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iIQyF-0003xh-KP for 34145@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 01:26:41 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1570685188; bh=ux4wrX+3HkSBI1IEP//nNaehgk02y0gymxXEkASUzes=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=l4UumHuHHn97cBNISjznwlp/qerkCRjjMpXUZAYJVgSlQDUygGg5R4r5FLaodcMGt qJuFHuWfzvoYRWPHsIwp/+nbNxmd84KWhc8BPviSiSOtnEYZglxH5vQvAUnMvIGdZf fDIuVlTyQKDoLZ7JxtMfB88ph4l4QMA7rpMNA1xg= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Original-Received: from detlef.gmx.de ([212.86.42.71]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx005 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MhU5R-1heRWR2iax-00ebfv; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 07:26:28 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87mue9zhk5.fsf@gnus.org> (Lars Ingebrigtsen's message of "Thu, 10 Oct 2019 00:21:14 +0200") X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:FcKHE+LfRa392aeLfn1xssZkLAYDd08j7WAZsqabpIvfCNvLS6W vw42xx8JjVB+GlyJKGg2hjJErNRExuQmgUum/cEexCYTccaYE1xmggnLlMFADW4U025b8iN xT0EiRUQSEHeoIea9jw09eg/8T3VD1cc1ykwzKVMLH8kW9WIFvA0Rn2Ww9BXHUIhJf852JA shocMLPriN8o/hxjbW8nw== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:KNxgkFYot8E=:wmI/e7osUtBz51H2sC0SKb D9pku2Xsfv9hBwiqr3BbT5KTQPnjcPD3Hj1A0Xy9P8eLDopwyp6k7j90b5O/Q154i21HBztXr CMn0x6y1YsHal5hEk4c7Fo/+JtrPeBEauF8YBNB3ZjRhJRuscYGkuawT2wJ9XbSIYE8qkBQh+ tOLVU6+UUdvobvs+LXCmE8HDZP4JfF3qxrI1kkgKl9qngO5FAZJZzWPQDVzu+IoX4OBi9Qze4 H60Vf8l9RzZf+eXz5I8dNiLRyvYMCz9KethBLyph0uEWtgpDMswHXivuaZaCZagU7Q1DbBUqu UsN5xxfKV+Q28t7VPx/29+cPxgQKaJBJDCZ0foTALf6fKdEZqL1nq0gEZEbsgp8PUQySkCq4H WFFe317G/611xeVPjqMgt5lWpb9b183bz8jDOFzykqEFcu50k54/UmG6SFDl/L2JP2sXMGkxf Fj4b+/JxzvL6MX5XICZibF3Gd2HUNcQwkFRh1CHlNSb0gyq9cPXX0Kk/B4ZEHiYXjpKip3e2U wMuylQ54VWLRt8PJvSFhD1g/utrGyB8vbRAVuNWDvnsvOY+V9B9VCzT682AGhCUDEyvPMxVVC Ni3fg7kvFVgXRfvkZZiCW5cKzyxNLIObrqtPzbS41TUGxofSZPtw+NW6UHut/B6aT0JEm2m1F ulb436uxWFX2JkuUg+Q4dviszmFEPNp+THgKMiA8hphqOJ/NX1GPQ2MAa67CkFHpuubddsD6b ktEJx/Goj3jAilnQWh1TxsmsANRurhLzIuiDq9T+OWcRkKxmsqowhYhqSmtUcNt2gbddMLhF X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.51.188.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:168836 Archived-At: Lars Ingebrigtsen writes: >> A Tramp user has reported recently, that writing a password into >> .authinfo happened too easily, without proper confirmation >> request. Granted, there was a `y-or-no-p' style question, but obviously >> he has accepted w/o thinking too much. See >> . >> >> Since this is sensible data, he proposes to make it harder to >> confirm. `auth-source-netrc-saver' should offer an alternative >> confirmation prompt, more like `yes-or-no-p'. Which prompt to apply >> should be configurable. > > It's a multiple-choice thing: > > (concat "(y)es, save\n" > "(n)o but use the info\n" > "(N)o and don't ask to save again\n" > "(e)dit the line\n" > "(?) for help as you can see.\n")) > > So I don't think a yes-or-no-p-like action here is practical. > > Anybody got an opinion? Honestly, I'm undecided. The major idea of this request was to make it harder to save a password string somewhere. Just a single ky is too easy. To my taste, yes/no is sufficient. This choice does not need to ask, whether the entered password shall be applied. It is obvious that it should. Best regards, Michael.