Re: [Evolution-hackers] ssl always/when-possible/never etc proposal

On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 10:35 +0800, Not Zed wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 16:06 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> > Since there was confusion again today on the difference between
> > always/whenever-possible, I guess it's a good time to bring this up.
> > 
> > I was thinking in the future, we could re-work the UI for the SSL
> > options to look something more like this:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > This would make the backend logic a little simpler too, because we
> > would haven't try and guess which SSL method to use based on trial-
> > and-error.
> This seems very technical/meaningless, i dont even know what it means.
> IMHO we should have SSL and TLS separated, they're different.
> "whenver possible" makes absolutely zero sense technically or visibly
> since it doesn't relate to what it appears to be at face value.
> i.e. something to the effect of:
> Security: None / TLS / SSL
> which is what we really mean.

But you can use TLS via a secure transmission pipe or not correct?  I
think we need to distinguish those two cases as well otherwise the user
maybe unable to determine the level of security used via the UI.

JP Rosevear <jpr novell com>
Novell, Inc.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]