Hi, Yes, my client is a patch over 0.8.16-rc1 if I recall correctly. I am busy tonight but can possibly share the patch when I'm home.
I think it's an annoying balance between having a generic name for the option if the irssi dev team wants to use a different hash in the future vs. the clarity of the existing option. I had an attempt where I used the length of the fingerprint even though that's pretty inaccurate. It worked during my testing but I didnt evolve it beyond that. Maybe something like how you specify password hashes? I was hoping to generate discussion as Id be happy with either options. Thanks for your work On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 2:06 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > 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? > >
