From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Network security manager Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 10:17:26 -0500 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <8761ecilmh.fsf@lifelogs.com> References: <85a93pj1n5.fsf@stephe-leake.org> Reply-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1416323871 16158 80.91.229.3 (18 Nov 2014 15:17:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 15:17:51 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Nov 18 16:17:42 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 1XqkXA-0007RI-7H for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 16:17:36 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53777 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XqkX9-0005uh-QJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 10:17:35 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52770) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XqkWq-0005ok-1n for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 10:17:22 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XqkWi-0001BB-NR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 10:17:15 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:39427) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XqkWi-0001Az-I2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 10:17:08 -0500 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XqkWh-0007Cn-Hs for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 16:17:07 +0100 Original-Received: from c-98-229-61-72.hsd1.ma.comcast.net ([98.229.61.72]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 16:17:07 +0100 Original-Received: from tzz by c-98-229-61-72.hsd1.ma.comcast.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 16:17:07 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Lines: 28 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-98-229-61-72.hsd1.ma.comcast.net 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 User-Agent: Gnus/5.130012 (Ma Gnus v0.12) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:5nNsVT1Tmt+rWDogV2JAAVYWmDE= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 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:177559 Archived-At: On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 15:41:50 +0100 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen wrote: LMI> The related thing I was also going to implement is the "shouldn't this LMI> connection be encrypted?" thing previously discussed. That is, if LMI> you're talking to an IMAP server, you most likely want that connection LMI> to be encrypted, and if not, Emacs should tell you that it isn't. LMI> This is trivial to implement in the NSM, but what should the defaults LMI> be? Definitely yes. Unencrypted should be the exception nowadays. LMI> IMAP, POP3: I think most users would want to be warned here LMI> SMTP, IRC: I don't think anybody cares LMI> NNTP: They might care if they're sending a password IRC should be upgraded if possible. Freenode at least supports both modes. SMTP is tricky. I would care if sending to an external server but not internally, and there's no easy way to distinguish them. Also if the message itself is encrypted, I wouldn't care. LMI> Uhm... is that all the protocols? I feel I'm forgetting one... HTTP? It's certainly recommended to encrypt it nowadays. Ted