Hi, On 03/04/2021 11:18, Simon Matter wrote: >> If you have a use case that you think can benefit big time by having >> compression, please feel free to describe it in details. Therefore might >> be saner ways to address it. >>
It sounds like there is no answer to this? Then why are we even discussing further? :-) >> >> If somebody feels being expert enough and knows what he is doing more >> than the others, he can still re-add the feature (i.e. by reverting any >> patch that might be removing the code) and recompile OpenVPN. The beauty >> of Open Source :-) > > I knew such answers will come :-) It wasn't meant to be just "such answer". It is an option that people willing to have compression can use. I personally do that for other projects, because I believe I have a usecase, but I also understand my case does not follow the project philosophy or it is too specific. > > But, back to security, why do you still allow OpenVPN being built on M$ > Windows then? That's the real place where people are comforted with snake > oil and may be tempted to feel safe when using an OpenVPN tunnel but in > reality are vulnerable. Isn't this much worse than leaving compression in > as a compile time option? This is totally orthogonal to having compression or not. Cheers, -- Antonio Quartulli _______________________________________________ Openvpn-devel mailing list Openvpn-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-devel
