Received: from noisybox.convivian.com (someone@noisybox.convivian.com [140.239.226.142]) by krbdev.mit.edu (8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA19790; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 15:14:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from questionably-configured.permabit.com.convivian.com (gw.permabit.com [4.36.55.2]) by noisybox.convivian.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E704D68402B for <rt-comment@krbdev.mit.edu>; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 15:14:01 -0500 (EST)
To: rt-comment@krbdev.mit.edu
Subject: Re: [krbdev.mit.edu #1324] cannot reproduce
References: <rt-1324-4003.6.01263352184972@krbdev.mit.edu>
From: Jered Floyd <jered@convivian.com>
Date: 21 Jan 2003 15:14:01 -0500
In-Reply-To: <rt-1324-4003.6.01263352184972@krbdev.mit.edu>
Message-Id: <877kcy9s6u.fsf@questionably-configured.permabit.com>
Lines: 15
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
RT-Send-Cc: 
X-RT-Original-Encoding: us-ascii
Content-Length: 574

"Sam Hartman via RT" <rt-comment@krbdev.mit.edu> writes:

> No matching key in entry means that you included an encrypted
> timestamp with an enctype that the KDC couldn't find for the key.  Do
> principals that work have a different set of encryption types than
> principals that fail?

I don't believe so.  Given that my mother hasn't complained about not
being able to check her mail, I'm assuming that hers still works.
"getprinc" shows the same set of keys as with my principal.

When I have a free moment, I will create a new principal and try to
reproduce.

--Jered