Hi, Caskey. On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Caskey Dickson wrote: >On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 01:23:26AM -0500, Dale Woolridge wrote: >> | For me this seems to be almost as simple as using the environment from a >> | technical standpoint. We could also use checkpassword's format, but I >> | think some people will struggle with getting the fd 3 stuff to work. I >> | want this to be really simple. >> Yes, I can understand that. I don't think the netstring format >> is too cumbersome either. >I'm indifferent to the netstring format, but being interchangable with >other authenticators that use fd3 has the advantage of widening the >range of off the shelf authenticators that binc could use. >But what I really want to say is that anyone writing an authenticator >who can't get the fd3 stuff to work should not be writing an >authenticator. We're not talking about rocket science, we're talking >about read(3, buf, buffsz);, which is no different than read(0, buf, >buffsz);.
Then I understand that you agree that reading from 0 is equally simple. Reading from 3 is just a hack that qmail/checkpassword uses, because qmail has hijacked 0, 1 and 2 for other purposes. It's the year 2003 now, and I don't want the authentication API to expect fd 3 to be free for use. The stub bincimap-auth-checkpassword will still write to checkpassword's fd 3, but I don't think it should read from fd 3 anymore. To the thing about who should be writing authenticators - don't you agree that programming experts also let out a "sigh" when they find they have to use strange stuff like fd 3? It's just more simple and has no side effects to use 0. :D Andy :-) -- Andreas Aardal Hanssen | http://www.andreas.hanssen.name/gpg Author of Binc IMAP | Nil desperandum
