Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
> ...
> I think Eric's point is one of user request and feedback. How
> does a user easily request a secure channel? As it is right now,
> "https:" as opposed to "http:" is a very simple way, and also
> contains direct feedback. The user knows (hopefully) that the
> extra "s" means it's intended to be secure (at least, we can hope
> for it, can't we? :-)).
:)
I'd imagine that many products would follow the lead of Netscape
and MS with a separate checkbox, as is already available for EMail
and news servers.
In our software (CUPS and Print Pro) the user can force
encryption via config files or environment variables (crude, but
sufficient for now while we work out the functional requirements)
I anticipate we'll be adding a command-line option to force
encryption (e.g. "lpr -E" or something like that), with similar
options in the GUIs.
....
That said, I don't think HTTP Upgrade will replace https. They
each have their places - I just hope that browsers start
supporting HTTP Upgrade (at least the server-initiated kind)
so that we don't have to write a hack-and-a-half to work around
browser limitations...
--
______________________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Easy Software Products [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Printing Software for UNIX http://www.easysw.com
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
