martes, 28 sep 2010 at 02:49, it seems you wrote:
> if you can't see the difference, I'm not sure I could explain it.
Yes, I can see the difference. If you look at the last lines of my
email I want this options to be added to The Bat! directly.
I was only saying we could do it with macros an
> Hello Jernej,
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 20:10:19 +0200 GMT (01/Oct/10, 1:10 AM +0700 GMT),
> Jernej Simončič wrote:
>>> It shouldn't be in the settings but a prompt when the connection is
>>> made. Simply prompt if one wants to accept the certificate or not.
>>> If you want a setting, just make one
Hello Jernej,
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 20:10:19 +0200 GMT (01/Oct/10, 1:10 AM +0700 GMT),
Jernej Simončič wrote:
>> It shouldn't be in the settings but a prompt when the connection is
>> made. Simply prompt if one wants to accept the certificate or not.
>> If you want a setting, just make one where yo
On Thursday, September 30, 2010, 15:34:25, Adrian wrote:
> It shouldn't be in the settings but a prompt when the connection is
> made. Simply prompt if one wants to accept the certificate or not.
> If you want a setting, just make one where you can choose the default
> action (only prompt/reject,
Hello Maxim,
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 18:09:36 +0300 GMT (29/Sep/10, 22:09 PM +0700 GMT),
Maxim Masiutin wrote:
MM> You can use stunnel (www.stunnel.org) to send your message.
Of course I won't do suich a thing. I want an email client with which
I can send messages without having to install second
Am 30.09.2010 15:12, schrieb Maxim Masiutin:
By default, the user is not allowed to run files with exe,
> pif, etc. extensions. But he has the right to modify that list in the
> Settings.
Do you recommend a somewhat deeply buried option in the settings to
allow bad certificates?
Make an
9/30/2010 10:48 AM
Hi Dierk,
On 9/30/2010 Dierk Haasis wrote:
>> Yes. Does not have to be deeply buried, should be in the Settings
>> somewhere.
DH> Don't make it such a permanent setting. It makes a lot more sense to
DH> have it as an option on the warning dialogue with a checkmark and OK
DH>
On Thursday, September 30, 2010, 2:31:13 PM, Vili wrote:
> If the certificate is bad, and the use of bad certificates
> are disabled, with a warning window point him where he can change
> that. Of course, by default, should not allow bad certificates. Also,
> even if the user enable the use of bad
By default, the user is not allowed to run files with exe,
pif, etc. extensions. But he has the right to modify that list in the
Settings.
>>> Do you recommend a somewhat deeply buried option in the settings to
>>> allow bad certificates?
>> Yes. Does not have to be deeply buried
9/30/2010 9:47 AM
Hi Vili,
On 9/30/2010 Vili wrote:
V> Yes. Does not have to be deeply buried, should be in the Settings
V> somewhere. If the certificate is bad, and the use of bad certificates
V> are disabled, with a warning window point him where he can change
V> that. Of course, by default,
It shouldn't be in the settings but a prompt when the connection is
made. Simply prompt if one wants to accept the certificate or not.
If you want a setting, just make one where you can choose the default
action (only prompt/reject, not "accept" so people don't auto-accept
all invalid certs).
>>>
Hello Vili!
On Thursday, September 30, 2010 at 3:31:13 PM you wrote:
> Yes. Does not have to be deeply buried, should be in the Settings
> somewhere.
Don't make it such a permanent setting. It makes a lot more sense to
have it as an option on the warning dialogue with a checkmark and OK
button.
>> By default, the user is not allowed to run files with exe,
>> pif, etc. extensions. But he has the right to modify that list in the
>> Settings.
> Do you recommend a somewhat deeply buried option in the settings to
> allow bad certificates?
Yes. Does not have to be deeply buried, should be
Hello Vili,
Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 7:40:28 PM, you wrote:
> By default, the user is not allowed to run files with exe,
> pif, etc. extensions. But he has the right to modify that list in the
> Settings.
Do you recommend a somewhat deeply buried option in the settings to
allow bad cert
9/29/2010 6:13 PM
Hi Vili,
On 9/29/2010 Vili wrote:
>> probably compromised) SSL servers. That's why our core users value us:
>> the system administrators put The Bat! to their users and can sleep
>> well. The users won't send a message to a compromised servers. This is
>> the unique trait o
> probably compromised) SSL servers. That's why our core users value us:
> the system administrators put The Bat! to their users and can sleep
> well. The users won't send a message to a compromised servers. This is
> the unique trait of The Bat! and we don't want to loose this niche.
Before an
Hello Alto,
Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 6:32:58 PM, you wrote:
> What you describe should be achieved using a management tool like
> Windows Group Policy.
Thank you very much for the idea, we will consider implementing it.
--
Best regards,
Maximmailto:m...@ritlab
On Monday, September 27, 2010, 18:17:05, Vilius Šumskas wrote:
> Bad cert is not The Bat!'s fault. And providing an option to bypass
> that, is a security risk as explained numerious times on this list.
Yes, because you can always trust those signed certificates.
--
< Jernej Simončič ><><><>
Hi Maxim,
> That's why our core users value us: the system administrators put
> The Bat! to their users and can sleep well. The users won't send a
> message to a compromised servers. This is the unique trait of The
> Bat! and we don't want to loose this niche.
What you describe should be achieve
Hello Thomas,
You can use stunnel (www.stunnel.org) to send your message. Stunnel
ingores the errors, while you send to stunnel via regular connection.
A sophisticated user will send via stunnel without a problem. For the
user who is unaware about these matters and is unable to configure
>> Yeah, I don't want an email client that looks out for me, I want an
>> email client that I can control.
> And to get back on topic, i would like my Mailclient to offer me the
> choose (to be intelligent) to accept a security risk for xyz days,
> months. Even if the Certificate is outdated.
> I
Am 28.09.2010 04:06, schrieb Thomas Fernandez:
Yeah, I don't want an email client that looks out for me, I want an
email client that I can control.
And to get back on topic, i would like my Mailclient to offer me the
choose (to be intelligent) to accept a security risk for xyz days,
months.
Am 27.09.2010 17:59, schrieb Marek Mikus:
This will not help you actually, but i recognized, that they have been
> working on this, because Bugtracker Entry gave me Feedback about Status
> Change...
nobody is working on this, report was closed
prior to writing some comment, i shut up
Hello Vili,
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 13:50:28 -0400 GMT (28/Sep/10, 0:50 AM +0700 GMT),
Vili wrote:
>> VŠ> Bad cert is not The Bat!'s fault. And providing an option to bypass
>> VŠ> that, is a security risk as explained numerious times on this list.
>> Right. So I'll lose the customer because TB!
Hello Dwight,
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 15:07:11 -0500 GMT (28/Sep/10, 3:07 AM +0700 GMT),
Dwight Corrin wrote:
>> I totally agree with Thomas. TB is not user friendly when reporting
>> errors, warnings. The error should be put into the face of the user,
>> suggest him a solution and allow him to bypas
> lunes, 27 sep 2010 at 22:07, it seems you wrote:
>> I see
>> this issue as very similar to the refusal to enable inserting notes or
>> other useful information into the body of messages in your data base,
>> or doing things like removing '[SPAM]' from headers for some imagined
>> reason of moral
On Monday, September 27, 2010, 7:04:13 PM, NetVicious wrote:
> What's the problem with It. I can export the mail and modify it and
> later import it to The Bat!. I have the same result. What's the
> diference
if you can't see the difference, I'm not sure I could explain it.
--
Dw
lunes, 27 sep 2010 at 22:07, it seems you wrote:
> I see
> this issue as very similar to the refusal to enable inserting notes or
> other useful information into the body of messages in your data base,
> or doing things like removing '[SPAM]' from headers for some imagined
> reason of morality.
W
On Monday, September 27, 2010, 3:25:31 PM, Rick wrote:
>> You have to remember that theBAT is always looking out for us. I see
>> this issue as very similar to the refusal to enable inserting notes or
>> other useful information into the body of messages in your data base,
>> or doing things like
Guten Morgen,
TF> "The Bat! gives the explanation in the account log, but we won't make
TF> an option to bypass this error."
TF> I am actually quite taken aback by this unexpected reply. I have
TF> absolutely no understanding for this policy which will certainly hurt
TF> my company.
Actually,
> You have to remember that theBAT is always looking out for us. I see
> this issue as very similar to the refusal to enable inserting notes or
> other useful information into the body of messages in your data base,
> or doing things like removing '[SPAM]' from headers for some imagined
> reason of
On Monday, September 27, 2010, 12:50:28 PM, Vili wrote:
> I totally agree with Thomas. TB is not user friendly when reporting
> errors, warnings. The error should be put into the face of the user,
> suggest him a solution and allow him to bypass this kind of
> certificate security issues if he wi
> VŠ> Bad cert is not The Bat!'s fault. And providing an option to bypass
> VŠ> that, is a security risk as explained numerious times on this list.
> Right. So I'll lose the customer because TB! doesn't allow me to
> override the security issue.
> You must be quite unaware of business reality to
Hello Vilius,
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 19:17:05 +0300 GMT (27/Sep/10, 23:17 PM +0700 GMT),
Vilius Šumskas wrote:
>> I am actually quite taken aback by this unexpected reply. I have
>> absolutely no understanding for this policy which will certainly hurt
>> my company. If I cannot send a mail to my cus
Hello Vilius!
On Monday, September 27, 2010 at 6:17:05 PM you wrote:
> You can always choose a company with does provide services as they are
> supposed to be served.
Yeah, especially when your reliable service just once hiccups for a
few days ...
> Bad cert is not The Bat!'s fault. And prov
Sveiki,
Monday, September 27, 2010, 6:10:47 PM, you wrote:
> Hello Tbbeta,
> When trying to send mail to a server with an expired Cert Mail send
> fails with no explanation: https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/view.php?id=6856
> Quote:
> "The Bat! gives the explanation in the account log, but we won't
Hello all,
Monday, September 27, 2010, Jens Franik wrote:
> This will not help you actually, but i recognized, that they have been
> working on this, because Bugtracker Entry gave me Feedback about Status
> Change...
nobody is working on this, report was closed
--
Bye
Marek Mikus
Czech
Am 27.09.2010 17:10, schrieb Thomas Fernandez:
When trying to send mail to a server with an expired Cert Mail send
fails with no explanation:https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/view.php?id=6856
This will not help you actually, but i recognized, that they have been
working on this, because Bugtracker E
> "The Bat! gives the explanation in the account log, but we won't make
> an option to bypass this error."
> No way to send an email with TB! if the sysad at the other end is a
> dimwit. Good night then.
> I am actually quite taken aback by this unexpected reply. I have
> absolutely no understand
Hello Tbbeta,
When trying to send mail to a server with an expired Cert Mail send
fails with no explanation: https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/view.php?id=6856
Quote:
"The Bat! gives the explanation in the account log, but we won't make
an option to bypass this error."
No way to send an email with TB!
40 matches
Mail list logo
