diff for duplicates of <20180518155659.porewd6moctumkys@madcap2.tricolour.ca>

diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt
index 63cf0df..ce59dc7 100644
--- a/a/1.txt
+++ b/N1/1.txt
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ On 2018-05-18 10:39, Mimi Zohar wrote:
 > > >>> abandonned format for the new record type while using
 > > >>> current->audit_context.
 > > > This sounds right, other than "type=INTEGRITY_RULE" (1805) for
-> > > ima_audit_measurement().  Could we rename type=1805 to be
+> > > ima_audit_measurement().  Could we rename type=1805 to be
 > > 
 > > So do we want to change both? I thought that what 
 > > ima_audit_measurement() produces looks ok but may not have a good name 
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ No, go ahead and make the change now.  I'm expecting that the
 containerid record will just be another auxiliary record and should not
 affect you folks.
 
-> > > INTEGRITY_AUDIT or INTEGRITY_IMA_AUDIT?  The new type=1806 audit
+> > > INTEGRITY_AUDIT or INTEGRITY_IMA_AUDIT?  The new type=1806 audit
 > > > message could be named INTEGRITY_RULE or, if that would be confusing,
 > > > INTEGRITY_POLICY_RULE.
 > > 
@@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ affect you folks.
 > > >>
 > > >> The justification for the change is that the INTEGRITY_RULE, as produced
 > > >> by ima_parse_rule(), is broken.
-> > > Post which series?  The IMA namespacing patch set?  This change should
+> > > Post which series?  The IMA namespacing patch set?  This change should
 > > > be upstreamed independently of IMA namespacing.
 > > 
 > > Without Richard's local context patch it may just be one or two patches.
diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest
index cbd877b..32663bd 100644
--- a/a/content_digest
+++ b/N1/content_digest
@@ -77,7 +77,7 @@
   "> > >>> abandonned format for the new record type while using\n",
   "> > >>> current->audit_context.\n",
   "> > > This sounds right, other than \"type=INTEGRITY_RULE\" (1805) for\n",
-  "> > > ima_audit_measurement(). \302\240Could we rename type=1805 to be\n",
+  "> > > ima_audit_measurement().  Could we rename type=1805 to be\n",
   "> > \n",
   "> > So do we want to change both? I thought that what \n",
   "> > ima_audit_measurement() produces looks ok but may not have a good name \n",
@@ -94,7 +94,7 @@
   "containerid record will just be another auxiliary record and should not\n",
   "affect you folks.\n",
   "\n",
-  "> > > INTEGRITY_AUDIT or INTEGRITY_IMA_AUDIT? \302\240The new type=1806 audit\n",
+  "> > > INTEGRITY_AUDIT or INTEGRITY_IMA_AUDIT?  The new type=1806 audit\n",
   "> > > message could be named INTEGRITY_RULE or, if that would be confusing,\n",
   "> > > INTEGRITY_POLICY_RULE.\n",
   "> > \n",
@@ -112,7 +112,7 @@
   "> > >>\n",
   "> > >> The justification for the change is that the INTEGRITY_RULE, as produced\n",
   "> > >> by ima_parse_rule(), is broken.\n",
-  "> > > Post which series? \302\240The IMA namespacing patch set? \302\240This change should\n",
+  "> > > Post which series?  The IMA namespacing patch set?  This change should\n",
   "> > > be upstreamed independently of IMA namespacing.\n",
   "> > \n",
   "> > Without Richard's local context patch it may just be one or two patches.\n",
@@ -138,4 +138,4 @@
   "Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635"
 ]
 
-69c9a436e1467917aa85d54b9254e77a0cc072a5cf2ed65feadc1a6d80612b58
+5766110c1ac6eff899acd17d6be8821d5156d2132d51a2b6e27c46146a097301
