From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Enforcing TLS for GNU ELPA Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 18:30:17 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20201019221020.GD1842@odonien.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="3624"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 20 00:31:01 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kUdgD-0000nO-3c for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 00:31:01 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57944 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kUdgC-00029N-4T for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 18:31:00 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:59878) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kUdfc-0001dX-0B for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 18:30:24 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:42905) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kUdfZ-00025g-Pg for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 18:30:23 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 349CB80C96; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 18:30:20 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id CD0F680855; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 18:30:18 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1603146618; bh=Sp+IwuCO+utVND80grDLnUdn62WV/PkTkDaWLo+r1/0=; h=From:To:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=fEr43/YE2DfnLxf+9IEqr4H8Jc8YHdfCzxCKOjnf7fyTZN6GZtz+/4Cel/YgRXE+D O/yProx8nz9qzKEhH939s6naEc/RU+ay43pA47ZIkMrMvgwlTvqLN96oqR6NORVJ6S amDo0NI026CmIzl0jj3kDCr3buX1d0wUZsD9cQG9D27ovdBHPNnO/PxbjyHUvd8q64 KiCCydXT8YwHjU+OfBATRm2FbEltiA8cRHicbXt9gSaLGFskWlMwRjX3jP87F6XG23 GIKzjYANu6HM0+tWN0wX3zf57ddhw1EDsCo5HiaCJwUtrKT4NAWE5Mbqi0FWNZj2nq +PvlKP2xuHLSg== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [157.52.9.240]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 564541200DC; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 18:30:18 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20201019221020.GD1842@odonien.localdomain> (Vasilij Schneidermann's message of "Tue, 20 Oct 2020 00:10:20 +0200") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/10/19 13:18:36 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:258153 Archived-At: > Some time ago I've contributed a change to a certain package > repository's webserver setup that responds to http:// requests with a > 301 redirect to the https:// version. Should the same be done for GNU > ELPA? Why/why not? I'd vote for no: I'm happy to encourage the use of `https` but that would prevent access over `http` which doesn't seem like a friendly choice. I'm not sure what would be the benefits (and for whom). > - There's still Windows users who do not have an installation with the > gnutls libraries, despite the strong suggestion to download it for the > full experience. We could emit a disapproving message from package.el when gnutls is unavailable (same thing for PGP, incidentally). Stefan