+1 On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 12:04:29 +1100 Mike Barnes <[email protected]> wrote:
> What we need to be doing is putting information about the quality of > encryption used in a conversation in front of the users, and letting > them make informed decisions, instead of fracturing the network > invisibly. > > Is there any defined mechanism to do this? Users are accustomed to the > little padlock icons on web URLs, can XMPP client software easily > implement something like this or will it need server extensions to > report back? As a temporary measure, could the server send a direct > message to a user alerting them if the encryption on a connection they > initiate falls below a desired threshold? > > Inform the users, don't cut them off from their contacts and leave > them no path to even tell them why. > > On 4 October 2015 at 22:53, Vincent Lauton <[email protected]> wrote: > > At least gmail,can't say I've blocked the others but I already can't > > communicate without forward secrecy. > > > > 13:52, 4 October 2015, Vincent Lauton <[email protected]>: > > > > Actually I do... > > > > 10:31, 4 October 2015, Evgeny Khramtsov <[email protected]>: > > > > Sat, 03 Oct 2015 13:40:17 +0200 > > Vincent Lauton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Also I meant I'll block servers that don't support any forward > > secrecy suites > > > > > > Great idea, LOL. Do you have gmail.com and all its hosted domains > > blocked already? They don't have any "secrecy" at all. > > > > > > > > -- > > Sent from Yandex.Mail for mobile > > > > > > > > -- > > Sent from Yandex.Mail for mobile -- Tim Birkefeld <[email protected]>
