Ar 21/08/2007 am 13:36, ysgrifennodd George Wright: > On Tuesday 21 August 2007 12:04:35 Dafydd Harries wrote: > > I think that's rubbish. Whenever the average user has a choice between > > "make it work" and "don't make it work", they will pick "make it work" > > every time. > > Why is that rubbish? I think it would be unwise to hide the security status > away from the client - if only so the client can put a little > message/icon/whatever in the IM window and warn the user that any information > [s]he sends is potentially open to sniffing. > > I feel the user has a right to know whether the CM they're using can support > encrypted traffic or not. > > > Also, what are your criteria for "secure"? > > Supports SSL encryption (or some other encryption method) of all IM traffic.
End-to-end, or client-to-server? You don't intend to require authentication of the server's identity? -- Dafydd _______________________________________________ Telepathy mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/telepathy
