Hi!
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 10:34:33PM +0200, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
The only Google product I ever use if I can help it is their web
search, and then only because all of the competitors are next to
worthless in comparison. I wish someone were able to step up to
Google on that front.
* Lyle webmas...@cosmicperl.com [2011-09-13 02:05]:
I wasn't going to reply to this, but as this thread has
continued... I thought Arthur's point was so relevant and clear
to the greater context of this (as he has continued to
outline), that such as comment as Aristotle's could only be
On 13/09/2011 21:34, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
* Lylewebmas...@cosmicperl.com [2011-09-13 02:05]:
I wasn't going to reply to this, but as this thread has
continued... I thought Arthur's point was so relevant and clear
to the greater context of this (as he has continued to
outline), that such
On 28/08/2011 20:03, sawyer x wrote:
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Lyle webmas...@cosmicperl.com
mailto:webmas...@cosmicperl.com wrote:
On 28/08/2011 19:30, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
* Arthur Corlisscorl...@digitalmages.com
mailto:corl...@digitalmages.com [2011-08-28
On Fri, 9 Sep 2011, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
Protecting your communication with another party from third
parties needs no justification whatever. It should be the assumed
default that exceptions are made from, not the exception from the
rule requiring proof.
If I?m having a massive argument
On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 04:57:55PM +0200, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
* Arthur Corliss corl...@digitalmages.com [2011-08-28 21:40]:
My humor was perhaps too subtle, since you didn't get the
relevance of my reply. Google switching to SSL by default is as
pointless as metacpan. In the former
* Peter Pentchev r...@ringlet.net [2011-09-11 02:50]:
I also wonder why is it that nobody has so far brought up
another important consequence of using SSL, at least with
a trusted certificate at the other end - protection from not
just eavesdropping, but also man-in-the-middle attacks. Yes, it
* Arthur Corliss corl...@digitalmages.com [2011-08-28 21:40]:
My humor was perhaps too subtle, since you didn't get the
relevance of my reply. Google switching to SSL by default is as
pointless as metacpan. In the former case it's the protection
of delivery to/from an entity that not only
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 12:47 AM, Arthur Corliss
corl...@digitalmages.comwrote:
I think you're still missing my point and focusing on defending a company
you obviously like.
All you had to do was originally write as much as I understand people's
desire for encryption, I still believe that 1.
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011, sawyer x wrote:
All you had to do was originally write as much as I understand people's
desire for encryption, I still believe that 1. SSL is only necessary in
specific websites (example A, example B) and 2. when working with Google we
shouldn't be worrying about encryption
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:33:54PM -0700, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
I didn't think it was a question of CPU speed anytime in the past
decade.
It is on small mobile clients, and the notwork latency it adds is also
noticeable. And on the server side, when you're running on old donated
equipment, or
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Arthur Corliss
corl...@digitalmages.com wrote:
Google switching to SSL by default is as pointless as metacpan. In
the former case it's the protection of delivery to/from an entity that
not only doesn't have your best interest at heart, but has a business
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011, David Nicol wrote:
I'll take this bait, swallow it, and hopefully bite off the line:
Yes, Google is going to use query data for its gain. But, Google's
business model
also involves *aggregation* and *respecting individual privacy*.
The SSL to Google Search is supposed to
* Shlomi Fish shlo...@shlomifish.org [2011-07-29 13:25]:
One reason I have not converted wholesale to metacpan is
because it redirects all http:// requests to https:// . Very
annoying.
http://www.imperialviolet.org/2010/06/25/overclocking-ssl.html
In January this year (2010), Gmail
On Sun, 28 Aug 2011, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
http://www.imperialviolet.org/2010/06/25/overclocking-ssl.html
In January this year (2010), Gmail switched to using HTTPS for
everything by default. Previously it had been introduced as an
option, but now all of our users use HTTPS to
* Arthur Corliss corl...@digitalmages.com [2011-08-28 19:55]:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2011, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
http://www.imperialviolet.org/2010/06/25/overclocking-ssl.html
In January this year (2010), Gmail switched to using HTTPS for
everything by default. Previously it had been
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Lyle webmas...@cosmicperl.com wrote:
On 28/08/2011 19:30, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
* Arthur Corlisscorliss@digitalmages.**com corl...@digitalmages.com
[2011-08-28 19:55]:
With friends like Google protecting your information, who needs
encryption? ;-)
On Sun, 28 Aug 2011, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
Right, so just let everyone in any coffee shop or any other open network
you connect to sniff all your traffic.
Did you have an actual point?
Yep, but it appears you completely missed it. I use encryption all the
time, but outside of
# from sawyer x
# on Sunday 28 August 2011 12:03:
a discussion of the effectiveness and CPU costs of SSL encryption
I didn't think it was a question of CPU speed anytime in the past
decade. How does a proxy cache encrypted data?
Atwood's Law of Computer Latency:
Processor cycles, storage
On Sun, 28 Aug 2011, sawyer x wrote:
You clearly misunderstood Aristotle. He doesn't care about a comment against
Google, and I'm sure he has no special affinity towards it. He simply had a
good remark on a discussion of the effectiveness and CPU costs of SSL
encryption and it was ignored with
On Sun, 28 Aug 2011, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
I didn't think it was a question of CPU speed anytime in the past
decade. How does a proxy cache encrypted data?
Bringing up proxies is an excellent point. While most proxies do support
SSL tunnelling, this does make the request uncacheable since the
On Sun, 28 Aug 2011, Arthur Corliss wrote:
snip
Which brings to mind yet another point: for those of us providing content
filtering services via proxies SSL is a huge problem. The only good
solution is to do transparent interception of SSL connections with your
proxies serving up a private
On Fri, 2011-07-29 at 12:58 +0300, Gabor Szabo wrote:
In case you don't have time to follow the many blog post of the
Perl community I think this is an item worth reading for you as a
Module Author.
Don't be left out from the new CPAN game!
This Week in MetaCPAN by Olaf Alders
In case you don't have time to follow the many blog post of the
Perl community I think this is an item worth reading for you as a
Module Author.
Don't be left out from the new CPAN game!
This Week in MetaCPAN by Olaf Alders
Hi Gabor,
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 12:58:52 +0300
Gabor Szabo szab...@gmail.com wrote:
In case you don't have time to follow the many blog post of the
Perl community I think this is an item worth reading for you as a
Module Author.
Don't be left out from the new CPAN game!
One reason I have
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Shlomi Fish shlo...@shlomifish.org wrote:
Hi Gabor,
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 12:58:52 +0300
Gabor Szabo szab...@gmail.com wrote:
In case you don't have time to follow the many blog post of the
Perl community I think this is an item worth reading for you as a
On 11-07-29 07:58 AM, sawyer x wrote:
Most of what we do online is private. Not I want to hide this because it's
illegal private, but this is personal, so mind your own business private.
How about? This is professional; I don't want my client's competetion
knowing what I'm researching.
--
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Shawn H Corey shawnhco...@gmail.comwrote:
On 11-07-29 07:58 AM, sawyer x wrote:
Most of what we do online is private. Not I want to hide this because
it's
illegal private, but this is personal, so mind your own business
private.
How about? This is
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 7:58 AM, sawyer x xsawy...@gmail.com wrote:
I like to work in HTTPS (and we should, really, in a secure world). Many
websites already moved to it by default such as github.com, all google
sites, workflowy.com, foursquare and more.
Those are all sites for which users
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 2:58 PM, sawyer x xsawy...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Shlomi Fish shlo...@shlomifish.org wrote:
Hi Gabor,
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 12:58:52 +0300
Gabor Szabo szab...@gmail.com wrote:
In case you don't have time to follow the many blog post of the
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 4:17 PM, David Golden xda...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 7:58 AM, sawyer x xsawy...@gmail.com wrote:
I like to work in HTTPS (and we should, really, in a secure world). Many
websites already moved to it by default such as github.com, all google
sites,
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 8:17 AM, David Golden wrote:
I think MetaCPAN is a great project and is evolving quickly, but
hyperbole doesn't serve any real benefit.
didn't someone here used to have sure it's hyperbole, but you can
never have too much hyperbole as their .sig?
On 29.07.2011 13:58, sawyer x wrote:
I like to work in HTTPS (and we should, really, in a secure world). Many
websites already moved to it by default such as github.com
http://github.com, all google sites, workflowy.com
http://workflowy.com, foursquare and more.
just out of curiosity, where
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 04:32:40PM +0200, Aldo Calpini wrote:
just out of curiosity, where exactly does google work in https?
https://encrypted.google.com/
--
David Cantrell | Bourgeois reactionary pig
EINE KIRCHE! EIN KREDO! EIN PAPST!
On 29.07.2011 17:39, David Cantrell wrote:
https://encrypted.google.com/
ah, ok. but that's explicitly requesting for https, which is something
different from eg. github, which really redirect http requests to https.
I don't question that there's a trend here, and I don't particularly
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Aldo Calpini d...@perl.it wrote:
On 29.07.2011 17:39, David Cantrell wrote:
https://encrypted.google.com/
ah, ok. but that's explicitly requesting for https, which is something
different from eg. github, which really redirect http requests to https.
Gmail
36 matches
Mail list logo
