xvendor - Re: obfuscating e-mails in RPM specs

Openwall Project		/home Owl JtR Pro crypt pam_passwdqc tcb phpass scanlogd popa3d msulogin / Linux BIND / advisories presentations / services donations / wordlists passwords / community lists wiki CVSweb mirrors signatures
bringing security into open environments

This website is powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux security-enhanced OS

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 13:44:56 -0500
From: Mark Hatle <mhatle@...sta.com>
To: xvendor@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: obfuscating e-mails in RPM specs

We just use a generic <source@...sta.com> email address in our packages. 
  This (is supposed to) go to a generic mailing list watched by our 
Marketing/Technical Support folks.. (customers have a difference address 
to contact.)

But that being said, I'm not sure if anyone actually uses that 
information for anything automatic.  If they do, I'd be interested to 
know what.

As far at the obfuscating email addresses goes.. I think your proposal 
would work well.

--Mark

Solar Designer wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> We're about to start obfuscating e-mail addresses in our RPM spec files,
> and we intend to update all of our existing specs accordingly.
> 
> The syntax we might use is this:
> 
> * Sat Sep 24 2005 Solar Designer <solar at owl.openwall.com> 3.6.1p2-owl15
> 
> My questions are:
> 
> 1. Are others doing the same?  What syntax is being used?
> 
> 2. Is this known to break any software processing spec files or RPMs?
> In particular, I guess the extra spaces might break the separation of
> fields, so should they be avoided?  Maybe use dashes instead?
> 
> 3. Is it even worthwhile to try to come up with a common syntax for this?
> 
> Thanks,
>

Please check out the xvendor mailing list charter.