On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 the voices made Matt Sergeant write:
> On 29-Aug-07, at 6:38 PM, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 the voices made Matt Sergeant write:
> >
> > MS> I've added in a basic hashed version of hostname now.
> >
> > Would this be a bad time to mention that people might get the idea that
> > they want to run two different setups of qpsmtpd on the same server?
>
> No that's fine. PID is still in there taking care of that.
True, but the code makes both the security guy and the programmer in me
twitch...
The part of the unique ID meant to identify the server is now focusing on the
OS/computer instead of the instance of qpsmtpd; which one can only get away
with as the PID is in the connection ID-part, and thus we shouldn't get more
collisions just because we run more than one instance on the same server.
However, this is not only (currently) an undocumented and somewhat unobvious
feature of the ID-generation, but it's also an unnecessary limitation.
If people ever were to remove the PID, maybe as soon as at the end of this
discussion, they might not think about fixing the $SALT_HOST.
Using the IPs + port ought to be the way to go.
/Tony
--
"Generally speaking, taunting mentally unstable people is a bad idea."
