On Fri, 2016-11-18 at 13:19 -0800, Vlad Krasnov wrote: > > Well, for example, your website has twice as many mentions of SSL > > as TLS. Why? Why don't you have a product called "Universal TLS"? > > The ratio is the same for letsencrypto.org. TLS 1.0 had already > > existed for more then a decade before either place existed. BTW, > > at google, it's 20:1, and that's just google, not the web. (Counts > > were done in the obvious dumb way "site:letsencrypt.org tls" and > > then with "ssl" and noting the summary stats at the top of the > > return results.) > > > > People are confused because we treat them as the same thing. > > Well, if the result of the confusion would be people *disabling* TLS > 1.* in favor of SSL 3.0, they would discover very quickly what is > TLS, and why no major browser works for them.
We already have a bunch of confusion around "SSL" vs. "TLS". Many mail clients seems to allow you to configure SMTP/IMAP servers to be accessed over "SSL", which means TLS, or "TLS", which means it connects in the clear and then negotiates an upgrade with STARTTLS. -- dwmw2
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
