On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 12:12:30PM -0500, Guillaume Parent wrote: > Hey, > Note that I'm no irssi developer, just curious about this since I have > implemented it in my own client a long time ago. > Wouldn't it be better to use an implementation independent name like > ssl_fingerprint?
I think it is better to use different names for different kinds of fingerprints. So, for example, if SHA3 is implemented later, it would be possible to have both ssl_sha256 and ssl_sha3 in the same file. If ssl_fingerprint means sha256 now and changes to sha3 in some version, you will get broken configuration file. Your own client is patched irssi? Can you share the patch too?
