Hi Vilius, On Wed, 16 May 2007 22:56:09 +0300 UTC (5/16/2007, 2:56 PM -0500 UTC my time), Vilius Šumskas wrote:
>> 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? V> Ahh, I see now. But this is actually the problem of the admin. No, IMO, it is the choice of the customer... I can only tell the customer his options. He has to make that decision. V> Why do you want to allow users to connect without TLS when you have TLS V> working? real world scenario..... some users do not use an email client that has TLS technology. Some do not want to be bothered. V> I'm always blocking plaintext connections from outside if there is V> *valid* TLS mechanism in place. I usually do the same, but in the end, it is up to the client to decide. Example, most ISPs here in the States, do not all TLS/SSL use for all of their customers, either on SMTP or IMAP/POP.... amazing. V> And if there is none, I just don't use it and don't ask myself why TB! V> doesn't allow me to accept my broken server. actual case, 8 years ago, I built an SMTP /IMAP / POP / DNS servers for a business, about 15 people... no big deal... It is set up on 143 and 993... now their own self-issued cert was made for 5 years... it has expired. If they used TB! and wanted TLS/SSL on 993, they could not log in, all of a sudden as the cert expired. If they used any other email client, no problem. It just does not make sense, as they still can use 143, but some want the benefits of SSL, which they have been using all this time. They know the cert is good. -- Gary ________________________________________________________ Current beta is 3.99.06 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
