lol768

67 ms·

781.
by lol768 7y ago
Out of interest, which country are you referring to here? GDS in the UK fully support Chrome, Safari, IE and Firefox [1]. [1] https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2012/10/11/what-devices-are-we-suppo...
782.
by lol768 7y ago
I suppose the issue with it being opt-in is that legacy, unmaintained internal tools won't have the opt-in mechanism
783.
by lol768 7y ago
All the desktop stuff is only on Windows though, right? If I'm not mistaken this is the first major .NET Core component that is not cross-platform, which is confusing in itself.
784.
by lol768 7y ago
Fair enough - but the wealth of documentation for it will continue to exist, as will older applications targetting it. This seems problematic if you want to search for ".NET" (meaning .NET Core).
785.
by lol768 7y ago
Yes, indeed. But will that change also apply to the other projects that target .NET Core (now ".NET")? Will Entity Framework Core become Entity Framework and clash with the 'full-fat' Entity Framework? The blog post sugg
786.
by lol768 7y ago
I'll be honest, as much as I love the improvements with .NET Core/.NET Standard, Microsoft's branding strategy leaves a lot to be desired. vNext has already been historically used in the context of ASP.NET to refer to ASP.N
787.
by lol768 7y ago
> It's installed as a study addon, only Mozilla could install these. And that gives it access to use `Cc`/Components.classes?
788.
by lol768 7y ago
Out of interest, what's special about this add-on that allows it to install intermediate certificates like this vs. an add-on that any random dev could write?
789.
by lol768 8y ago
This hits the nail on the head exactly. It's a vicious cycle. Let's Encrypt are perhaps one of the only players in a good position to make a real difference here. I don't see any other CAs implementing ACME for S/MIME (
790.
by lol768 8y ago
Hey Josh, thanks for your response. >In the S/MIME case individuals need to be more participatory, and it's hard to get end-users to do anything, let alone correctly. Do you not think there's a case to be made here for MUA
791.
by lol768 8y ago
>and a few billion for DKIM, with DKIM happening for about half of email I'm not sure I'd count DKIM in this category, since it's not user-facing.
792.
by lol768 8y ago
>S/MIME is super niche. Even within the niche of email encryption it's a niche protocol Compared to what, PGP? As far as I know, S/MIME has the most prevalent support out of the box in email software.
793.
by lol768 8y ago
>One or more agreed mechanisms to ensure the legitimate owner of name@example.com can get a cert for name@example.com but no-one else can. If the owners of example.com can, you need a rationale for why that's OK, which will be a str
794.
by lol768 8y ago
Nice to see AES GCM & ChaCha20-Poly1305 in there. Seems to generally be moving in a good direction. Now we just need a CA that will offer free S/MIME capable certificates in a space that is rapidly shrinking (Sectigo have recently
795.
by lol768 8y ago
>I don't think you would have made that mistake with user-websites being able to log out the user if you had designed with security as an important objective. Really? In my experience not many people care about logout CSRF, it'
796.
by lol768 8y ago
Meta, but the text on that page renders awfully. Seems they're scaling the elements by 1.64297 instead of just setting a font-size?! Result is incredibly fuzzy https://lol768.com/i/AmpAbuseDormMendez
797.
by lol768 8y ago
>Or are they only told the application they need to hack on the day - that is truly impressive if so! No, the applications that are available to attack are known in advance - the exploits tend to involve months of work by talented resear
798.
by lol768 8y ago
> In fact I would say it's more secure. DNS can be spoofed pretty easily. This is a cryptographically signed package How is it more secure? If, as you say, DNS can be spoofed easily - I can easily get a certificate issued with the r
799.
by lol768 8y ago
I am reassured by certifcate transparency to an extent, personally. To this end, more sites should look to deploy Expect-CT.
800.
by lol768 8y ago
> How much should a small local news organization in Louisville, KY be expected to pay to comply with laws on random other continents? I think they made the right choice here. If they weren't doing anything shady with data collectio
801.
by lol768 8y ago
>This seems like a silly thing to be annoyed about. Checks don’t have fees like most other types of electronic payment, and money is money. It's not silly, it's a waste of my time - and I value my time, that's why I bill f
802.
by lol768 8y ago
Please don't send checks.. I can't think of a more annoying way to get paid! Regardless of the accounting particulars which have been discussed here, there's bound to be a much better way of actually paying folks.
803.
by lol768 8y ago
Interesting to see how this compares to how we run things for EsperNet. - We don't use much cloud technology at present. That means we run our own DNS nameservers (using PowerDNS and a single MySQL node - AXFR and slave nameservers giv
804.
by lol768 8y ago
I personally use weechat and weechat-android ( https://github.com/ubergeek42/weechat-android ) and it's the best Android client I've tried. It does require some technical set-up, though. You can plug Glowing Be
805.
by lol768 8y ago
>...and it turns out that's basically all I wanted. I wonder if the network hosting its own instance of such a capable client would be enough for new users to get going? This is what we do on EsperNet ( https://webchat.esp
806.
by lol768 8y ago
>IMHO Firefox didn't make me feel slow anytime Agreed, used it since version 2. Been happy with it for over a decade. It's not been flawless, but I never felt the need to jump ship. Flash used to be pretty slow on Linux and ful
807.
by lol768 8y ago
You have a point, and I agree OB has been disappointing. I think there's a middle ground where you offer something that still provides value for personal use, attracts potential patnerships (see Flux) but doesn't give away the &qu
808.
by lol768 8y ago
>As an example, Monzo was quite outspoken about their API at first, but it has since taken a backseat, presumably because they didn't see a huge need for it. You're not wrong.. but it's still very much functional and has r
809.
by lol768 8y ago
>People still use checks, are you kidding me? Checks, magstripe transactions and signatures on their card receipts..
810.
by lol768 8y ago
>My hunch is that these are doing comparatively better outside the US because basic banking elsewhere is relatively worse than here. In my experience with at least Chase and Capital One the "big banks" have invested pretty heav

More ›