From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2200 invoked by alias); 2 Apr 2004 17:08:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact overseers-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: overseers-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 2189 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2004 17:08:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Apr 2004 17:08:41 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i32H8ejj030237 for ; Fri, 2 Apr 2004 12:08:40 -0500 Received: from pobox.toronto.redhat.com (pobox.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.4]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i32H8ej25581 for ; Fri, 2 Apr 2004 12:08:40 -0500 Received: from touchme.toronto.redhat.com (IDENT:postfix@touchme.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.9]) by pobox.toronto.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i32H8df7001835 for ; Fri, 2 Apr 2004 12:08:39 -0500 Received: from toenail.toronto.redhat.com (toenail.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.211]) by touchme.toronto.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77C4280008E for ; Fri, 2 Apr 2004 12:08:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from toenail.toronto.redhat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by toenail.toronto.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.5) with ESMTP id i32H8dHl030831 for ; Fri, 2 Apr 2004 12:08:39 -0500 Received: (from fche@localhost) by toenail.toronto.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i32H8dSU030829 for overseers@sources.redhat.com; Fri, 2 Apr 2004 12:08:39 -0500 Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 17:08:00 -0000 From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" To: overseers@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Error trying to get CVS write access via web-form Message-ID: <20040402170838.GJ26117@redhat.com> References: <20040402155707.GC1144@coc.bosbc.com> <20040402161740.GH26117@redhat.com> <20040402164058.GH1144@coc.bosbc.com> <20040402164511.GI26117@redhat.com> <20040402165750.GJ1144@coc.bosbc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="FoLtEtfbNGMjfgrs" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040402165750.GJ1144@coc.bosbc.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-q2/txt/msg00010.txt.bz2 --FoLtEtfbNGMjfgrs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-length: 462 Hi - cgf wrote: > Actually, I think that, at the very least, both should be checking for > white space after the host key. [...] Unless there is at least a theoretical problem that justifies constraints, I'd prefer not to bother enforce them. The way these keys are currently used (possibly prefixed with cvs-only verbiage, but otherwise copied verbatim), I can't see any harm in having space at the end-of-line or not. sshd accepts it both ways. - FChE --FoLtEtfbNGMjfgrs Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline Content-length: 189 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAbZ4WVZbdDOm/ZT0RAvhWAJ4tD8zUV56E3WccsqkmtRfIyZWjmwCfU8c9 cRgaOMiprBj+dbzu07c5VJ0= =ad3o -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --FoLtEtfbNGMjfgrs--