standardizing user field in pass?

Saeed Rasooli saeed.gnu at
Mon Mar 4 07:58:22 CET 2019

To me only the directory makes sense because:

1- Most websites use email as username nowadays. And email should probably
match your gpg private key. So no need to store it for each password.

2- For websites that have a username field that not email, typing it is
probably easier than copying to clipboard and pasting it.

3- When you need to copy and paste the username, it's easier when it's in a
separate file.

4- For integrating with browser, the file name (for username or password or
anything else) can match the html input name, so that you can easily add
new inputs. Some login pages require 3 fields to login for example. The
login url can be a new file too.

In case of not integrating with browser, we may need to standardize the
file names, for example:

On Mon, Mar 4, 2019, 3:47 AM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason at wrote:

> Pass doesn't impose any sort of schema, and that's not going to
> change. But for extensions that do use some particular schema, of
> course it makes sense to try to agree on one thing.
> _______________________________________________
> Password-Store mailing list
> Password-Store at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Password-Store mailing list