From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Bug#766395: emacs/gnus: Uses s_client to for SSL. Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 16:04:12 +0900 Message-ID: <87lho04qvn.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <20141022193441.GA11872@roeckx.be> <87zjcnj2k6.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> <87mw8mzmxj.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <20141023143702.3897e618@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> <8761fazkx7.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <20141023145721.12ed0820@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> <87vbnay5lf.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <20141023154223.45f2c9eb@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> <874muuihjh.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20141023230048.13f8234a@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> <87wq7pgpif.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20141024171421.78720abe@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> <87r3xxgmx2.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20141024204202.276dbb1f@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> <8738a95t6b.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20141027153954.08930677@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1414479900 1097 80.91.229.3 (28 Oct 2014 07:05:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 07:05:00 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Florian Weimer , emacs-devel@gnu.org, kurt@roeckx.be, Rob Browning , rms@gnu.org To: "Perry E. Metzger" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 28 08:04:52 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Xj0pj-0008US-Tt for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 08:04:48 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37464 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xj0pj-00032U-HE for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 03:04:47 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50245) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xj0pQ-00031C-66 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 03:04:35 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xj0pI-0006ra-Ly for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 03:04:28 -0400 Original-Received: from shako.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.161]:53390) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xj0pI-0006rL-Cg; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 03:04:20 -0400 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by shako.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C9101C3A07; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 16:04:12 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 20B541A27CF; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 16:04:12 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: <20141027153954.08930677@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> X-Mailer: VM undefined under 21.5 (beta34) "kale" acf1c26e3019 XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 130.158.97.161 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:175916 Archived-At: Perry E. Metzger writes: > > While my credentials in security aren't anywhere near as good as > > yours, unfortunately, you are obviously an extremist > > Whatever. You can keep calling me names all you like -- but it > doesn't make your opinion any more correct. Indeed, no matter what > names you call people, it won't increase the evidence for your > position. Absolutely correct. But then I didn't claim it increased the evidence for *my* position. I said that it dilutes *your* authority (and you are an authority AFAICS), in particular when you are claiming that some particular position of yours is "not extreme". And that's all I said. N.B. "Extremism in the defense of freedom is no vice" -- and I consider contributions to security technology and policy[1] defense of freedom. OTOH, extreme policies still need to be justified by the facts. Footnotes: [1] in the narrow technical sense of "policy", as in "firewall policy" -- obviously the "security policy" implemented by the border patrol or whatever they're called these days is not a priori defense of freedom.