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

On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 12:12 -0400, JP Rosevear wrote:
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.

Possibly you can, but it doesn't make much sense.  And in that case we should just have another drop-down entry
None / TLS / SSL / TLS over SSL

Michael Zucchi <notzed ximian com>
"born to die, live to work, it's all downhill from here"
Novell's Evolution and Free Software Developer

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