From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Deprecate TLS1.0 support in emacs Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2017 09:09:49 -0400 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <8737978oo2.fsf@lifelogs.com> References: <87o9sp7qok.fsf@gmail.com> <87zic9vk98.fsf@mouse> <87fue17mo5.fsf@gmail.com> <87tw2hvhob.fsf@mouse> <8760ex63hi.fsf@gmail.com> <87fue1v5lr.fsf@mouse> <87shi0tqh3.fsf@gmail.com> <87d18fwl66.fsf@gmail.com> <87tw1rihu0.fsf@mouse> <4037dc81-4245-6925-842a-2c84a5ba996d@cs.ucla.edu> <87pocfibky.fsf@mouse> <87d18cbg66.fsf@lifelogs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1501855800 27564 195.159.176.226 (4 Aug 2017 14:10:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 14:10:00 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.50 (gnu/linux) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Aug 04 16:09:56 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dddIZ-0006mm-B7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 04 Aug 2017 16:09:55 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54015 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dddIf-0001zh-57 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 04 Aug 2017 10:10:01 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50386) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ddcNi-0000EW-Tg for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Aug 2017 09:12:16 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ddcMd-00078E-Es for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Aug 2017 09:11:09 -0400 Original-Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=60195 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ddcMd-00077V-52 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Aug 2017 09:10:03 -0400 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ddcMP-0003xb-9C for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Aug 2017 15:09:49 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Lines: 27 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org X-Face: bd.DQ~'29fIs`T_%O%C\g%6jW)yi[zuz6; d4V0`@y-~$#3P_Ng{@m+e4o<4P'#(_GJQ%TT= D}[Ep*b!\e,fBZ'j_+#"Ps?s2!4H2-Y"sx" Mail-Copies-To: never Cancel-Lock: sha1:QysPZeWZgD/KVkecSdIFe8mBp+s= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 195.159.176.226 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:217285 Archived-At: On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 23:17:13 -0400 Stefan Monnier wrote: >> IMHO, this replacement is OK only if the message has buttons to take the >> appropriate actions (including silencing warnings as needed). Otherwise >> it's noise users will filter out. SM> I generally agree on the principle, but at the same time I wonder what SM> actions would make sense: there are basically 2 applicable actions, one SM> of which (contact the webmaster to suggest upgrading to a better SM> protocol) is difficult to automate. I would suggest these possible actions: * don't warn me about this site anymore and proceed (whitelist) * don't warn me about TLS 1.0 issues for (dropdown: 1 day, 3 days, 1 month) * don't warn me about this site for (dropdown: 1 day, 3 days, 1 month) * proceed this once * blacklist site as long as it uses TLS1.0; abort connection; never notify * blacklist TLS1.0 globally; abort all such connections; never notify SM> As for the other action (silence the warning) I wonder if it's really SM> needed: if the mechanism is discreet enough, it's just as easy for the SM> user to "filter it out as noise". Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Ted