Nico, those were my thoughts, exacly, except that I was thinking about using "dig +short HOST | ..." which has the cleanest output of all. But there is that initial "if" in your email, which prevented me from sending email in the first place. Using ping seems the most portable way, albeit not very elegant. b. On 29 August 2015 at 12:25, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 11:51 PM, Walter Carlson <wlcrls47@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:26 AM, Walter Carlson <wlcrls47@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > >> Perfect, thanks. This winds up working for me (as far as I've tested so > >> far.) > >> > >> Match exec "ping -q -c 1 -t 1 %n | grep '192\.168\.'" > >> StrictHostKeyChecking no > >> UserKnownHostsFile none > >> > > > > For the record, the last line has to be "UserKnownHostsFile /dev/null". > I > > saw "none" being used in others' openssh examples, but for me, that's > using > > the file ~/none rather than being interpreted as "don't use one". > > If you've installed the relevant "bind-utils" or similar DNS package, > can't you ust use "host %n | grep ' 192\.168\\." ? It's faster than > running ping, especially for non-responsive hosts. > _______________________________________________ openssh-unix-dev mailing list openssh-unix-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.mindrot.org/mailman/listinfo/openssh-unix-dev
