Re: using auth-source for authentication

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Mon, 19 May 2008 22:22:01 +0200 Michael Albinus <address@hidden> wrote: 

MA> I'm still thinking about it. Is it really necessary, to (mis-)use the
MA> port part of an auth-source entry with the value "tramp" in order to
MA> indicate, that such an entry is intended for all possible Tramp
MA> protocols? I believe it might be sufficient, that the port part of an
MA> entry is optional. If it is missing, it means "intended for all
MA> protocols (Tramp) or ports (other applicants of auth-source)".

I think it makes sense to unite Tramp-ish protocols (ssh, sftp, scp,
ftp, etc.) under "tramp" as a protocol name, but if you disagree I'm OK
with it, it won't bother me at all.  Just replace "tramp" with the
method name in the call to auth-source-user-or-password or I can do it
if you like.

You can also allow "tramp" or the method name as the port, with the idea
that users can use "tramp" or "ssh" as needed.  It will require two
calls to auth-source-user-or-password, though, because it doesn't
currently handle multiple ports and I would prefer not to change that
(to keep the API as simple as possible).

Ted