From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Daiki Ueno" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Moving files from lisp/gnus/ to lisp/net/? Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 23:01:14 +0900 Message-ID: <54a15d860711060601s2d85f32o5942939270a7e59e@mail.gmail.com> References: <2366.81.51.30.174.1098020712.squirrel@yxa.extundo.com> <87y7dd2e0f.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1194357821 31329 80.91.229.12 (6 Nov 2007 14:03:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:03:41 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Simon Josefsson , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Nov 06 15:03:44 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IpP1d-0000kG-Tu for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:03:30 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IpP1T-0004KE-2r for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:03:19 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IpOzY-0002Y9-T4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:01:20 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IpOzV-0002WD-Ko for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:01:19 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IpOzV-0002Vv-DH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:01:17 -0500 Original-Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.162.232]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IpOzU-00012y-QT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:01:16 -0500 Original-Received: by nz-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id f1so1300389nzc for ; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 06:01:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; bh=l3w6oE8kQPqrvIN9LIwShQsdesuSc3opZhr4IlWvgKA=; b=QN41vRX0hph04pzCy8vx9gN+v2U4onX7r0RHEX0dz+xzb8UDwBprP6kdZySYeYD0fAdOS6AXc18u6L+kr5X0I+1Xijsvj9Q9qhVDBu9lHA8kPgyvA7XVEjkl3Pv/vAgkUzHErcNniesScS8sQKA3CytD6QkneWMylZYCBPhwNII= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=KUrJ+gclbJjEZcKqp7MEHqK4qWNkzhFw0RXBzzPgkIYYgh4/iIP1gG8v13ZR7Cd2MCz8auadM28sgAOZwVy6dHGJxRRy99i050n9vl1l0NXQkmXH/Lh1oYGQw9JSPiyQQp0iN+JFOhMcwH/ovxtTG7znySiVOMYtLj8kd+28hFc= Original-Received: by 10.142.83.4 with SMTP id g4mr1497172wfb.1194357674564; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 06:01:14 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.142.213.14 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 06:01:14 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline X-Google-Sender-Auth: 64ba3417f4a1e8ce X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:82661 Archived-At: 2007/11/6, Richard Stallman : > The existing `read-passwd' API is not suitable for password.el, because > each password needs to be associated with an application-dependent > 'key'. There is no parameter for that in `read-passwd'. Do you think > it is worth adding one? > > I see no harm in adding one. Adding it at the end would avoid > incompatibility. > > Alternatively, and what I consider the best idea (but it was some time > since this was discussed and I may very well have forgotten some > important point): let's make `read-passwd' a more lower-level primitive, > used by `password-read'. > > All else being equal, I'd rather avoid adding another level of function > calling. It increases the total complexity, and I don't see any benefit. > What is the benefit here? Even though read-passwd is not perfectly secure, it is far better than password caching in elisp. If read-passwd does password caching by itself and the docstring says so, thoughtless programmers will tend to use that feature in every case. That will cause spreading insecure code. So I like the latter idea, or rather to let password-read have longer name like password-read-and-cache. Regards, -- Daiki Ueno