Great Circle Associates Majordomo-Workers
(June 1995)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: majordomo vs. Perl5.001e/NeXTSTEP
From: Dave Barr <barr @ math . psu . edu>
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 1995 13:27:36 -0400
To: bbum @ friday . com
Cc: majordomo-workers @ GreatCircle . COM
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 31 May 1995 23:45:37 CDT." <199506010445.XAA01711@demiurge.friday.com>

In message <199506010445.XAA01711@demiurge.friday.com>, Bill Bumgarner writes:
>4) *-request aliases are pretty useless in the current incarnation-- anyone  
>worked on making request-answer useful???

I don't understand.  Majordomo handles stuff to *-request pretty
seamlessly.  request-answer is still around for historical (and
backward compatibility) reasons for those who haven't yet updated
their aliases and list documentation.

Items 1 and 2 are already covered in the FAQ.

As far as encrypting passwords in your .majordomo file, what's the
point?  They've got to be decrypted at some point.  What are we supposed
to use for decryption keys, or are you thinking of some sort of
one way hash like MD5?  Either way either the .majordomo or the
.config file is going to have to be in plaintext unless we want to get
into the realm of PGP.  (which is on the drawing board)

--Dave

Indexed By Date Previous:
From: (nil)
Next: Re: majordomo vs. Perl5.001e/NeXTSTEP
From: John Relph <relph@presto.ig.com>
Indexed By Thread Previous:
From: (nil)
Next: Re: majordomo vs. Perl5.001e/NeXTSTEP
From: John Relph <relph@presto.ig.com>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com