3 ms·

Browsers also expect plain-text. Is https by the same logic also pointless, and should no longer be used? (I get what the author is trying to say, I'm just rea

Browsers also expect plain-text. Is https by the same logic also pointless, and should no longer be used? (I get what the author is trying to say, I'm just reacting to the strange way the argument is phrased. I don't think they thought their wording and reasoning in that passage through enough.)

baybal2 5y ago
> Browsers also expect plain-text. Is https by the same logic also pointless, and should no longer be used? > I'm just reacting to the strange way the argument is phrased. It's made so in a manner to provoke a lot of loud noises to make it to spread, and resonate across the blogosphere more than the original lacking substance message ever could. A publicity stunt. It's a self-promotion tactic - saying something outrageous often earns more notoriety for somebody unable to earn fame through virtue.
Macha 5y ago
And HTTP has solved this with a hodgepodge of solutions like HSTS + preloading for producers and HTTPs everywhere/new browser settings for users but it has taken years. I think email could do this, but it require some dominant players (probably Google + Microsoft as providers for home + business users, or maybe Google/Apple/MS as dominant client producers) to participate actively.
pvg 5y ago
That's not the same logic because http is not a messaging protocol and it took many years to get to something resembling 'https by default'. Still, not being a messaging protocol https and browsers alone are not much better at exchanging end-to-end encrypted messages than plaintext since an https server sees plaintext content.
IncRnd 5y ago
> Browsers also expect plain-text. Is https by the same logic also pointless, and should no longer be used? > (I get what the author is trying to say, I'm just reacting to the strange way the argument is phrased. I don't think they thought their wording and reasoning in that passage through enough.) Your question explicitely ignores the argument that was made and pretends a point to point protocol operates similarly to a store and forward protocol.
- daneel_w 5y ago
  Your comment explicitly ignores the larger part within parentheses and continues with a false statement and a baseless assumption.
  - IncRnd 5y ago
    That's disingenous. I quoted the entire part within parenthesis, and pointed out what part of the stated argument from the article was being ignored. The issue is not that email or browsers can be configured to accept plain-text. What you incorrectly equate is two different protocol mechanisms, but you are focusing on the types of traffic.
    - daneel_w 5y ago
      There's no incorrect equating or conflation of anything going on here. I'm familiar with both SMTP, HTTP and TLS on low level.

baybal2 5y ago

> Browsers also expect plain-text. Is https by the same logic also pointless, and should no longer be used? > I'm just reacting to the strange way the argument is phrased. It's made so in a manner to provoke a lot of loud noises to make it to spread, and resonate across the blogosphere more than the original lacking substance message ever could. A publicity stunt. It's a self-promotion tactic - saying something outrageous often earns more notoriety for somebody unable to earn fame through virtue.

Macha 5y ago

And HTTP has solved this with a hodgepodge of solutions like HSTS + preloading for producers and HTTPs everywhere/new browser settings for users but it has taken years. I think email could do this, but it require some dominant players (probably Google + Microsoft as providers for home + business users, or maybe Google/Apple/MS as dominant client producers) to participate actively.

pvg 5y ago

That's not the same logic because http is not a messaging protocol and it took many years to get to something resembling 'https by default'. Still, not being a messaging protocol https and browsers alone are not much better at exchanging end-to-end encrypted messages than plaintext since an https server sees plaintext content.

IncRnd 5y ago

> Browsers also expect plain-text. Is https by the same logic also pointless, and should no longer be used? > (I get what the author is trying to say, I'm just reacting to the strange way the argument is phrased. I don't think they thought their wording and reasoning in that passage through enough.) Your question explicitely ignores the argument that was made and pretends a point to point protocol operates similarly to a store and forward protocol.

daneel_w 5y ago
Your comment explicitly ignores the larger part within parentheses and continues with a false statement and a baseless assumption.
- IncRnd 5y ago
  That's disingenous. I quoted the entire part within parenthesis, and pointed out what part of the stated argument from the article was being ignored. The issue is not that email or browsers can be configured to accept plain-text. What you incorrectly equate is two different protocol mechanisms, but you are focusing on the types of traffic.
  - daneel_w 5y ago
    There's no incorrect equating or conflation of anything going on here. I'm familiar with both SMTP, HTTP and TLS on low level.