On 2013-02-26 4:26 PM, Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net> wrote:
Am 26.02.2013 22:19, schrieb Charles Marcus:
On 2013-02-26 3:59 PM, Ben Morrow <b...@morrow.me.uk> wrote:
At 3PM -0500 on 26/02/13 you (Charles Marcus) wrote:
Now the only other question is, again already being contemplated by Timo
apparently, why the config file uses SSL...
Why not?
Because, as has been pointed out, TLS is the 'new', and SSL is the 'old'?
and you still do not understand that it is the same
I meant the new NAME. But obviously you're more interested in picking
fights than having a conversation.
Timo, what I would suggest is allow the use of ssl in the config file
for backwards compat, but change future versions to use TLS...
I would be against that idea.
My turn... why?
because it is a useless change which makes
code complexer and more error proof
Assuming you meant error-PRONE, that is ridiculous.
Postfix does things like this all the time (implementing something new
but maintaining the old way for backwards compat). If it is done right,
it won't hurt a thing (and I think we all know timo knows how to do
things right).
And I always choose (chose - from now on I'll choose TLS) 'SSL Always',
so shouldn't these connections show 'SSL' instead of TLS, since I'm
basically forcing my phone to SSL?
I suspect the difference is that the 'SSL' options use imap-over-SSL on
port 993 while the 'TLS' options use STARTTLS over port 143.
Don't know how you or Reindl came to that conclusion, because the ports are
specified separately.
because if you would spend 10 seconds of
your time with a default tunderbird setup
you would see that STARTTLS is 143 and
TLS/SSL is 993 because the port switchs
with the dropdown change
Yes, but again, they are independent, and you can change the port if you
like.
Question: can you use arbitrary ports for secure IMAP/POP/SMTP? I don't
see why not. You can use arbitrary ports for secure http...
--
Best regards,
*/Charles/*
