On Friday 03 March 2006 23:10, Richard Dobson wrote: > > Funnily enough, if we'd had naming in TLS from the start, there probably > > wouldn't even *be* STARTTLS since everyone would be using the better > > method. :-) > > I doubt that since the main reason STARTTLS is there is so that you can > reuse the same port for both encrypted and unencrypted versions of a > protocol not really so you can pass the desired hostname, thats just a > side benefit of being able to start out unencrypted.
But wouldn't it then be easier to endorse using _only_ the encrypted version? TX -- Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web site: http://trypticon.org/ GPG Fingerprint: 9EEB 97D7 8F7B 7977 F39F A62C B8C7 BC8B 037E EA73
pgpmCBwq4QGzY.pgp
Description: PGP signature