On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 10:35 +0800, Not Zed wrote: > On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 16:06 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: > > Since there was confusion again today on the difference between > > always/whenever-possible, I guess it's a good time to bring this up. > > > > I was thinking in the future, we could re-work the UI for the SSL > > options to look something more like this: > > > > > > > > This would make the backend logic a little simpler too, because we > > would haven't try and guess which SSL method to use based on trial- > > and-error. > > This seems very technical/meaningless, i dont even know what it means. > > IMHO we should have SSL and TLS separated, they're different. > "whenver possible" makes absolutely zero sense technically or visibly > since it doesn't relate to what it appears to be at face value. > > i.e. something to the effect of: > > Security: None / TLS / SSL > > which is what we really mean.
But you can use TLS via a secure transmission pipe or not correct? I think we need to distinguish those two cases as well otherwise the user maybe unable to determine the level of security used via the UI. -JP -- JP Rosevear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Novell, Inc. _______________________________________________ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
