On Wed, 20 Oct 1999, Magosanyi Arpad wrote:
<snip'ing the reason for which this is exactly the same.. eeh.>
>
> For the exact same reason we should investigate the possibility of having
> SSL as the crypto layer of transmission.
Is there any reason what-so-ever for SSL (or whatnot) to be implemented on
the protocol level? There's all kinds of security requirements, ranging
from 'eh?' to strong encryption. Sure pluggable wrappers (got SSL on the
other end? No. Okay, gzip then? No. Ah. I'll just send plaintext then..)
negotiated at connect time would be a neat thing, and pretty flexible, but
any -extraneous- support.. would it be sane to put it in the protocol
rather than elsewhere?
Kriss
--- .... --..-- -.-- --- ..- .-. . .- -.. -- --- .-. ... . --..-- . .... ..--..
Kriss Andsten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> telnet slartibartfast.vogon.se 4243
