From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#34145: 27.0.50; Writing .authinfo needs better confirmation Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 09:37:50 +0200 Message-ID: <87h84fohpt.fsf@gnus.org> References: <8736pn8uw0.fsf@gmx.de> <87mue9zhk5.fsf@gnus.org> <87lftt9nng.fsf@gmx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="80728"; 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: Michael Albinus Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Oct 11 09:42:24 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 1iIpZA-000Kul-4v for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 09:42:24 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46682 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iIpZ8-0001m7-QS for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 03:42:22 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:34915) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iIpUy-0006Qg-Ku for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 03:38:06 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iIpUw-00022d-Lh for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 03:38:04 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:48794) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iIpUw-00022L-2W for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 03:38:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iIpUv-0004F2-TT for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 03:38:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 07:38:01 +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=B34145.157077947616289 (code B ref 34145); Fri, 11 Oct 2019 07:38:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 34145) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Oct 2019 07:37:56 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57615 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iIpUq-0004Ee-DU for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 03:37:56 -0400 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]:55626) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iIpUo-0004EU-N7 for 34145@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 03:37:55 -0400 Original-Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=marnie) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iIpUk-0001qV-GY; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 09:37:52 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87lftt9nng.fsf@gmx.de> (Michael Albinus's message of "Thu, 10 Oct 2019 07:26:27 +0200") 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:168946 Archived-At: Michael Albinus writes: >> 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. The password is always applied (i.e., used), but it can be saved, not saved and don't ask again. And in addition you can edit the .authinfo line. So I don't see yes-or-no-p working here. It could add another "really save?" after you've answered "y", though, but I think that sounds kinda obnoxious. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no