"Garber, Neal" <Neal.Garber@energyeast.com> wrote:
That's unfair Alan. I was not trying to *dictate* that other admins shouldn't see it - I was proposing that admins should have a choice - because, IMO it's not needed to troubleshoot most problems.
It's no more unfair than your comment about why don't I see the need to keep private information secure...
I could and it would do most of what I wanted. However, it feels like a kludge and everyone on my team would need to remember to filter the output when running in debug mode.
Huh? Write a wrapper for the server. That's what shell scripts are for.
I just think it's safer (from the perspective of admins that don't want/need to see the passwords) to have a config. option that forces the suppression.
You have access to the source. Make a patch that you apply and maintain locally. The main disagreement here is that you want the patch to be applied to the server, for everyone elses "benefit". As I hope I'm making clear, that won't happen.
I've asked questions in an attempt to understand your point-of-view and you didn't answer them.
I have responded to every issue of substance you raised. I have explained *my* position in depth, and given you multiple options for how to achieve your goal without impacting everyone else using the server. Insulting me because I disagree with you pretty much guarantees that I will never agree with you. Alan DeKok. -- http://deployingradius.com - The web site of the book http://deployingradius.com/blog/ - The blog