Ok, this really will be my last email on the subject...
On 2013-02-26 3:20 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Technically you're almost definitely using the TLS protocol (it has nothing to
do with ports). http://wiki2.dovecot.org/SSL has some info about Dovecot's
naming. (Of course, in Dovecot it's som
Am 26.02.2013 23:30, schrieb Ben Morrow:
> At 10PM +0100 on 26/02/13 you (Reindl Harald) wrote:
>> Am 26.02.2013 22:41, schrieb Charles Marcus:
>>>
>>> Absolutely no idea what you said or meant here...
>>
>> if it is not the same why are doing GnuTLS and OpenSSL
>> finnaly both? HMM - because TLS
At 10PM +0100 on 26/02/13 you (Reindl Harald) wrote:
> Am 26.02.2013 22:41, schrieb Charles Marcus:
> >
> > Absolutely no idea what you said or meant here...
>
> if it is not the same why are doing GnuTLS and OpenSSL
> finnaly both? HMM - because TLS is SSL3.1 is the reason
> and in fact due deve
At 4PM -0500 on 26/02/13 you (Charles Marcus) wrote:
> On 2013-02-26 3:59 PM, Ben Morrow 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?
>
On Feb 26, 2013, at 4:12 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 26.02.2013 23:03, schrieb Charles Marcus:
>> 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...
>
> you still refuse to understand the difference bet
Am 26.02.2013 23:03, schrieb Charles Marcus:
> 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...
you still refuse to understand the difference between STARTTLS
and SSL/TLS, we are speaking about 143/993 to not c
On 2/26/2013 3:38 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:
> The native Android mail shows these choices:
>
> None
> SSL
> SSL (Accept all certificates)
> TLS
> TLS (Accept all certificates)
This is just a dumbing-down of the terms for the mass market. Many
end-user mail clients use these same terms, so at lea
On 2013-02-26 3:50 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Those aren't really about SSL/TLS either. The same choices in slightly better
words are:
* none
* TLS on port 993 if available
* TLS on port 993 always
* STARTTLS on port 143 if available
* STARTTLS on port 143 always
Great... I guess its
On 2013-02-26 4:26 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 26.02.2013 22:19, schrieb Charles Marcus:
On 2013-02-26 3:59 PM, Ben Morrow 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 us
Am 26.02.2013 22:49, schrieb Reindl Harald:
> Am 26.02.2013 22:38, schrieb Charles Marcus:
>> On 2013-02-26 3:55 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>> TLS is practically the next SSL version after SSL 3.0 and internally SSL
>>> 3.x, in fact it is only a wording issue
>>
>> Prove it
and i prove it again
h
Am 26.02.2013 22:41, schrieb Charles Marcus:
> On 2013-02-26 3:58 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> and to make you completly weird
>>
>> dovecot, postfix and many others are using OpenSSL libraries
>> which does oh wonder TLS while GnuTLS can do SSL as well
>
> Absolutely no idea what you said or me
Am 26.02.2013 22:38, schrieb Charles Marcus:
> On 2013-02-26 3:55 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> TLS is practically the next SSL version after SSL 3.0 and internally SSL
>> 3.x, in fact it is only a wording issue
>
> Prove it.
dmaned i have proven it at least a hour ago
read the first line of the
On 2013-02-26 3:58 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
and to make you completly weird
dovecot, postfix and many others are using OpenSSL libraries
which does oh wonder TLS while GnuTLS can do SSL as well
Absolutely no idea what you said or meant here...
--
Best regards,
*/Charles/*
On 2013-02-26 3:55 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
TLS is practically the next SSL version after SSL 3.0 and internally
SSL 3.x, in fact it is only a wording issue
Prove it.
In fact, there is obviously plenty of confusion about it (based on just
a few minutes of googling), but, I'm inclined to agre
Am 26.02.2013 22:19, schrieb Charles Marcus:
> On 2013-02-26 3:59 PM, Ben Morrow 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,
On 2013-02-26 3:59 PM, Ben Morrow 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
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?
> Timo, what I would suggest is allow the use of ssl in the config file
> for backwards compat, but change f
Am 26.02.2013 21:55, schrieb Reindl Harald:
> to show the ordinary user it is practically the same while STARTTLS
> starts with a unencrypted connection to do a handshake
>
> and I imagine it is because TLS uses
>> stronger encryption algorithms (which I just learned) that Dovecot uses it
>> wh
Am 26.02.2013 21:46, schrieb Charles Marcus:
> On 2013-02-26 3:22 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> ah so enlighten us about the big difference you see and what in SSL is not
>> "transport layer security"
>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa380515%28v=vs.85%29.aspx
>> TLS is a
On 26.2.2013, at 22.46, Charles Marcus wrote:
> I'm curious though... I'm fairly certain that my Android phone differentiates
> between SSL and TLS, with choices something like:
>
> NONE
> SSL if available
> SSL Always
> TLS if available
> TLS Always
>
> And I always choose (chose - from now o
At 9PM +0100 on 26/02/13 you (Reindl Harald) wrote:
>
> TLS is a standard closely related to SSL 3.0, and is sometimes
> referred to as "SSL 3.1"
More specifically, TLS x.y is just SSL (x+2).(y+1) with a completely
unnecessary name and version change. For example, TLS 1.2 internally
identifies it
On 2013-02-26 3:22 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
ah so enlighten us about the big difference you see and what in SSL is
not "transport layer security"
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa380515%28v=vs.85%29.aspx
TLS is a standard closely related to SSL 3.0, and is sometimes
r
Am 26.02.2013 21:18, schrieb Charles Marcus:
> On 2013-02-26 3:09 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 26.02.2013 21:05, schrieb Charles Marcus:
>>> Why does it say 'TLS', when it technically (there is a difference after
>>> all) should say 'SSL'?
>>> Not a big deal, but it is just something I've bee
On 26.2.2013, at 22.18, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 2013-02-26 3:09 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 26.02.2013 21:05, schrieb Charles Marcus:
>>> Why does it say 'TLS', when it technically (there is a difference after
>>> all) should say 'SSL'?
>>> Not a big deal, but it is just something I've be
On 2013-02-26 3:09 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 26.02.2013 21:05, schrieb Charles Marcus:
Why does it say 'TLS', when it technically (there is a difference after all)
should say 'SSL'?
Not a big deal, but it is just something I've been meaning to ask
because it is practically the same?
http://
Am 26.02.2013 21:05, schrieb Charles Marcus:
> Why does it say 'TLS', when it technically (there is a difference after all)
> should say 'SSL'?
> Not a big deal, but it is just something I've been meaning to ask
because it is practically the same?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_Layer_Se
Hi all,
Ok, I have:
login_log_format_elements = user=<%u> method=%m rip=%r lport=%{lport}
mpid=%e %c session=<%{session}>
We only allow inbound IMAP, and only SSL on port 993.
Looking at the logs, %c is obviously the encryption type, but...
Why does it say 'TLS', when it technically (there
27 matches
Mail list logo
