| 1 |
On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 15:26:34 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 15:06:25 -0500 |
| 3 |
> Olivier Crête <tester@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> On Mon, 2011-03-07 at 20:47 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 6 |
>> > Why does everyone assume it needs to be enforced? If user is |
| 7 |
>> > interested in protecting his/her data, he/she can simply use |
| 8 |
>> > https://. If he/she is not, there is no real reason to enforce |
| 9 |
>> > slower (and not always supported) SSL. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> Maybe it's not to protect the user, but to protect the Gentoo |
| 12 |
>> infrastructure.. And really, SSL has been supported by every browser |
| 13 |
>> for the last 15 years. And it is not in any way slow or slower than |
| 14 |
>> non-SSL. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> If you really think you need to force all users to use SSL, thus |
| 17 |
> assuming they're unable to make their own decisions, why don't you |
| 18 |
> restrict bugzie access completely? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Michał, |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
You don't seem to (or pretend not to) understand that using SSL |
| 23 |
protects not *the user* (in which case, yes, a user is free to leave the |
| 24 |
door to *his own* house wide open), but the Gentoo infrastructure that |
| 25 |
is far from his own and that all of us are using. Besides, complaining |
| 26 |
about SSL being slow is absurd considering how mildly interactive and |
| 27 |
how low-traffic a typical bugzilla session is. You could do just fine |
| 28 |
over a 9600 bps modem. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Regards, |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Antoni |
Archives