01/19/2012 12:56 PM, sajolida: > anonym: >> 01/11/2012 11:35 PM, intrigeri: > >>>> * ssl_only does not check whether any fetched config (like in step >>>> 1 and 3) uses plaintext smtp, pop or imap. Do we want this? >>>> I wouldn't ask if it was a trivial change, but this code is >>>> a complete mess and would need a complete reorganization for this >>>> feature. It would make the above point less confusing. But can we >>>> live without it? >>> >>> If things are kept as is, it seems to me ssl_only makes things more >>> secure *only* for a given user if her email provider: >>> >>> - serves the email protocols over SSL; >>> - does not serve an autoconfig file pointing her MUA to non-SSL. >>> >>> I'm not sure how we can possibly help other users: suddenly denying >>> them access to their email does not look that appalling to me. >>> >>> OTOH, I would find it great if we could make it clear to them what >>> risk they are taking. How hard would it be to implement this? (This >>> would be a low-priority enhancement: I don't think our current Claws >>> Mail setup has anything to say against SSL.) > >> Turned out to be easier than I initially thought (thanks, exceptions!). > >>> In any case, the current situation makes the "Only use secure >>> protocols" checkbox a wrong statement, isn't it? > >> You're right. Implemented (PATCH 6/6). > > And what if the server provides only plaintext? I guess the autoconf > will just fail in that case.
Correct, that's what I implemented. > It might be nice then to tell the user she can try again the > autoconfig without ssl_only but will get an insecure connection. Hmm, something like that could make sense, but would honestly be a bit tricky to implement given how things currently work. Since this isn't very relevant for the Tails use case I think I refrain from implementing it. Cheers!
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ tails-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev
