Il 11/01/2013 17:40, Kevin Smith ha scritto:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Marco Cirillo wrote:
I'd like to also point out, expecially how STARTTLS is handled xmpp wise,
that you can't know what gets implemented and what doesn't explicitly as
long as you don't have the software, it's code or
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Marco Cirillo wrote:
> I'd like to also point out, expecially how STARTTLS is handled xmpp wise,
> that you can't know what gets implemented and what doesn't explicitly as
> long as you don't have the software, it's code or the implemented thing
> reaches "the wire
Il 11/01/2013 14:14, Dave Cridland ha scritto:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Marco Cirillo wrote:
I just pointed out that it's like this from 2006 which is when it was
implemented, perhaps it can't be "suprising" also stated it's rather an
inconveniency and that it's not compliant with the c
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Marco Cirillo wrote:
> I just pointed out that it's like this from 2006 which is when it was
> implemented, perhaps it can't be "suprising" also stated it's rather an
> inconveniency and that it's not compliant with the current RFC which
> requires TLS support on s
Il 11/01/2013 13:56, David Banes ha scritto:
You're correct but I don't see how any organisation can justify using plain
text communications for their client facing infrastructure in 2013.
The simple fact is TLS/SSL should be in use anywhere a business carries a
clients data.
David
http://ze
You're correct but I don't see how any organisation can justify using plain
text communications for their client facing infrastructure in 2013.
The simple fact is TLS/SSL should be in use anywhere a business carries a
clients data.
David
http://zerp.ly/dbanes
xmpp: da...@jabber.org
Mobile: +4
Just read a bit of the discussion, and at the very least I'm not sure
"surprising" is the correct adjective in terms of GTalk not supporting
encryption on s2s streams, it's known from years.
It could be "inconvenient" at the very least.
And Philippe:
Section 5.2 - RFC 6120
<< Support for STA
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013, Mathias Ertl wrote:
I consider this a bug on your side, TLS is a required feature for
s2s-connections. Please fix the issue, as you are currently blocking
It is required to implement, not to deploy.
On 2013-01-11 13:13, Björn Kempén wrote:
> We do not currently support TLS on our s2s connections, so that's currently
> not expected to work.
Why not? Will this issue be fixed soon?
Its not like Google hasn't been pushing for SSL-only its major services
including Gmail. This was a big step forwa
> From: operators-boun...@xmpp.org [mailto:operators-boun...@xmpp.org] On
Behalf Of Björn Kempén
> Sent: vineri, 11 ianuarie 2013 13:14
> To: Mathias Ertl
> Cc: XMPP Operators Group
> Subject: Re: [Operators] Gmail federation
>
> We do not currently support TLS on our s2s connections, so that's
cur
We do not currently support TLS on our s2s connections, so that's currently
not expected to work.
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Mathias Ertl wrote:
> On 2013-01-11 10:25, Björn Kempén wrote:
> > Juan Pablo Carlino:
> > I suspect that our servers notice that your server is unreachable, and
On 2013-01-11 10:25, Björn Kempén wrote:
> Juan Pablo Carlino:
> I suspect that our servers notice that your server is unreachable, and
> cache this to not attempt to set up a new connection for each outgoing
> message addressed to your domain.
> It seems strange that this cache would disallow conn
Juan Pablo Carlino:
I suspect that our servers notice that your server is unreachable, and
cache this to not attempt to set up a new connection for each outgoing
message addressed to your domain.
It seems strange that this cache would disallow connections for two days
though, so I'll look into it.
13 matches
Mail list logo
