From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <9front-bounces@9front.inri.net>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,
	HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Received: from 9front.inri.net (9front.inri.net [168.235.81.73])
	by inbox.vuxu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CD7B25079
	for <ml@inbox.vuxu.org>; Thu, 16 May 2024 04:08:21 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from auth.driusan.net ([207.148.18.58]) by 9front; Wed May 15 22:06:55 -0400 2024
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=driusan.net; 
 h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:; s=20180128; 
 bh=/Cc/z5NL21IyXTFtKloeKkCdEECUC9VYHS6n54walFY=;  
 b=JCPSqlTv0MPidr/59sLGlRR5iQMkBRZAkgGOhYBjna0cKwmqUBlMwVY34beq4sSWgG/rfCvGUzdr/+VUh0440izucvfBKdM/QmaJlMyPiVIsG6qT00iuOPQS6CfwuLZr/HejSA0f8iwHbjMMUWHtoIi2nfJlOMsoOboVyvXZiDzS36q5G5pn9n74tA27uqyJ/UOxGue13zHtgCy73QOcTIX6DpJzSpZ/g7IEnzZCn05ZqY4I5uAB9iUvUTyYwB9nXOXxr0rJFT9XJBaYx7ZlV4LO0poIJ6QHZMb+Mp3eLPdpFATzGTidyTz8bW5Ox7hA2mkOiQnRO+lgZnxuSXJXGQ== 
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([184.161.79.109]) by auth; Wed May 15 22:06:54 -0400 2024 
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 22:06:52 -0400 
From: Dave MacFarlane <driusan@driusan.net> 
To: 9front@9front.org 
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android 
In-Reply-To: <ZkVf-SR5UY4LSuYI@alice> 
References: <4C1B6B746BF77B2F88319BBFCBFEB08C@driusan.net> <ZkVf-SR5UY4LSuYI@alice> 
Message-ID: <3E9CD53E-3E5D-4798-8D24-3A42917AA750@driusan.net> 
MIME-Version: 1.0 
Content-Type: text/plain; 
 charset=utf-8 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 
Autocrypt: addr=driusan@driusan.net; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= 
 mDMEZkVa8BYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAHsCkXeCK6z/+2vpRioaY38eg2RCOhxQhqEDeykbgVPu0JURh 
 dmUgTWFjRmFybGFuZSA8ZHJpdXNhbkBkcml1c2FuLm5ldD6IcgQTFggAGgQLCQgHAhUIAhYBAhkB 
 BYJmRVrwAp4BApsDAAoJEO/ghoP8LmLATIAA/30Q8HZbjr+WnF9IhHpKXA8Vdd3RCGqu5eR5ze3z 
 ywiaAP9ME2rGIVv44dPIuwrQZfoMKMfRM32S3mHGpWnbEG/mDrg4BGZFWvASCisGAQQBl1UBBQEB 
 B0A5XRaB/G7Nxox6q9Q9FetnGHUvPn92ZmxOD3CFNovBTgMBCAeIYQQYFggACQWCZkVa8AKbDAAK 
 CRDv4IaD/C5iwKdYAQCnvTyIqwjbSxT8lqhrs/zi2E/8sR4B0TIRyCQYZPepdAD/ceby7zeC7LJg 
 GHXJMy3ZS5nUflSHleu616T/aKijxAw= 
List-ID: <9front.9front.org>
List-Help: <http://lists.9front.org>
X-Glyph: ➈
X-Bullshit: persistence-based singleton replication realtime-java interface interface 
Subject: Re: [9front] Re: "Insecure" icon in gmail 
Reply-To: 9front@9front.org
Precedence: bulk

On May 15, 2024 9:23:05=E2=80=AFp=2Em=2E EDT, Anthony Martin <ality@pbrane= 
=2Eorg> wrote: 
>Dave MacFarlane <driusan@driusan=2Enet> once said: 
>> 2=2E Is there a better way to do this? 
> 
>Not currently=2E Note that webfs, ftpfs, aux/wpa, dns over tls, and 
>probably others do not bother checking the validity of a server's 
>certificate=2E This is not ideal=2E No one has done the work=2E Alas=2E 
> 
>> 3=2E Would it make sense to add a flag to use startls but not 
>> validate certificates for upas/smtp? 
> 
>Perhaps=2E But it would still be "insecure" even if the Google borg 
>doesn't show the super serious (see, it's even colored red) flag 
>on your messages=2E 
> 
>Cheers, 
>  Anthony 
> 
 
I'm not sure I follow why it would be more insecure than the things you li= 
sted above=2E=20 
 
Currently the options I can figure out with the flags to upas/smtp are:=20 
1=2E Transmitted in plain text 
2=2E Encrypted in transit, but you can only send email to known servers th= 
at you've pre-setup the thumbprint for before sending=2E 
 
The security would be between the two=2E