Re: port forwarding trouble

On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Sergio Gelato wrote:

> * Darren Tucker [2005-08-05 00:41:37 +1000]:
>> Sergio Gelato wrote:
>>> * Frederik Eaton [2005-08-02 17:39:59 +0100]:
>>>> Also, I don't think that the "host@port" syntax suggested in the bug
>>>> comments is a good idea.
>>>
>>> At the very least it should be port@host. There is precedent for that,
>>> e.g. in FlexLM LM_LICENSE_FILE environment variables.
>>
>> Why is that better the host@port? I would bet there's precedent for
>> that somewhere too.
>
> Because "@" traditionally stands for the preposition "at", and most
> people find it more natural to use the host name as a scope identifier
> than the port number (maybe also because e-mail addresses have
> the host name on the right side of the @ sign).
>
> And while we are comparing with e-mail addresses: how about host!port ?

Yay! let's all have a completely meaningless discussion about what
character is used to delimit the port, while completely ignoring the
substantive parts of the patch.

The character doesn't matter one bit, and if proceed with turning on
HashKnownHosts by default then you won't ever see it.

If you want to contribute to this discussions, then please start by
reading and testing the patch.

-d

_______________________________________________
openssh-unix-dev mailing list
openssh-unix-dev@mindrot.org
http://www.mindrot.org/mailman/listi...enssh-unix-dev