Hello Gary, Wednesday, May 16, 2007, 10:43:37 PM, you wrote:
> Hi Vilius, > On Wed, 16 May 2007 22:33:53 +0300 UTC (5/16/2007, 2:33 PM -0500 UTC my > time), Vilius Šumskas wrote: >>> You don't need it! and ...... since you do not need it to get(POP) or see >>> (IMAP) your mail on the server, which can only be done with authentication >>> in the first place, the choice for accepting a cert should be left with the >>> user! V>> I don't follow the logic here anymore. Since you don't need it, why V>> you are making this a problem of The Bat? > It is a problem in TB! because TB! will not allow the user to accept a cert. > It makes that decision for him/her, and that answer is always no, you cannot > connect (if the cert is outdated).. > It is a problem in that it is a matter of convenience to the user. Where the > user can always connect otherwise using a standard connection on 143 (in > most cases, depending if the IMAP server is set up that way, or standard POP > on 110). > To put it another way, if I can connect to a server via POP or IMAP, after I > authenticate, why will it not let me connect securely, when I can connect > normally. It should be my choice, since I can connect anyway. Does that not > makes sense? Ahh, I see now. But this is actually the problem of the admin. Why do you want to allow users to connect without TLS when you have TLS working? I'm always blocking plaintext connections from outside if there is *valid* TLS mechanism in place. And if there is none, I just don't use it and don't ask myself why TB! doesn't allow me to accept my broken server. -- Best regards, Vilius ________________________________________________________ Current beta is 3.99.06 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
