4 ms·
That's not true. Sure, many languages require you to drop down to a lower-level API to create a vanilla TCP connection, but if the language you're using doesn't
by peburrows 10y ago
That's not true. Sure, many languages require you to drop down to a lower-level API to create a vanilla TCP connection, but if the language you're using doesn't provide a way to open a TCP socket and do the TLS negotiation dance, then you've probably chosen the wrong language.
- sneak 10y agoThen all billion of us on the web have "chose[n] the wrong language".
- regularfry 10y agoThis is painfully accurate.
- nilved 10y agoIndeed, it's quite unfortunate
- mort96 10y agoThe language is entirely uninteresting; what's interesting is what the runtime allows you to do. Browsers purposefully don't allow you to create raw TCP connections, yet JavaScript can in many other contexts (e.g node.js) create raw sockets perfectly fine.
- kuschku 10y ago> Browsers purposefully don't allow you to create raw TCP connections Which is ridiculous, as it literally brings zero advantage to restrict that.
- lorenzhs 10y agoWell I think it's a good idea to prevent web pages from just opening up a socket to some server, speaking whatever protocol they like. It could be easily abused to spam, etc. There is, however, https://www.w3.org/TR/tcp-udp-sockets/ https://www.w3.org/TR/tcp-udp-sockets/ - see section 10 for an example.
- kuschku 10y agoConsidering the move proposed in this thread to move even SMTP to HTTP, how would preventing connecting to SMTP prevent spam when one can still POST to SMTP-over-HTTP?
- paulddraper 10y ago"We need to restrict this to prevent abuse." -- time passes -- "We need to change everything in order to accomplish a task under these restrictons."